Dismissed

Pankaj Gautam v. State

Delhi HC11 Dec 2015BAIL APPLN./2694/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed an application for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. The applicant was in judicial custody following a delay attributed to absconding. Allegations of dowry cruelty and attempts to cause grievous harm under Section 307 IPC were prima facie serious, and the applicant's history failed to justify bail release.

What did the court decide?

Exemption from bail granted to the State. Bail application dismissed. Anticipatory bail order struck off the record.

Pankaj Gautam Vs State — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2015)

¶1

#28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 11.12.2015

¶4

BAIL APPLN. 2694/2015

¶5

PANKAJ GAUTAM ..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocate

¶7

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Radhika Koluru, APP with SI Govind Singh, PS- Uttam Nagar

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

¶9

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

¶10

CRL.M.A.18123/2015 (Exemption)

¶11

Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶13

BAIL APPLN.2694/2015

¶14

1. The present is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) seeking

¶15

BAIL APPLN.2694/2015

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

regular bail in FIR No.1164/2015, under Sections 307/498-A/34 IPC, registered at Police Station- Uttam Nagar, Delhi.

¶18

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant relies upon the order passed by this Court on 23.11.2015 whereby the applicant’s mother namely,

¶19

Asha Rani was released on anticipatory bail, to urge that he is entitled to parity.

¶20

3. The above submission does not come to the aid of the present applicant inasmuch as this Court has already rejected his application for anticipatory bail by way of a speaking order dated 14.10.2015, on grounds similar to the one taken by Asha Rani, mother of the applicant.

¶21

4. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.11.2015. It has been submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the delay in arresting the applicant was occasioned by his deliberately keeping himself away from the investigation. The learned APP would urge that the applicant was in fact absconding. The Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Govind Singh, Police Station- Uttam Nagar, who is present in person states that proceedings under Section 83 of the Code were initiated against the applicant in this behalf. It is only thereafter that the applicant surrendered before the concerned Police Station.

¶22

BAIL APPLN.2694/2015

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

5. It has also been pointed out by Ms. Kolluru, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State that the present applicant has other previous involvements and at least two other First Information Reports have been registered against him inter alia under Section 376 IPC and Sections 354/506/325 IPC, respectively.

¶25

6. In the present case, it is observed that the wife of the applicant was rushed to hospital around midnight on 05.09.2015 with a history of ingestion of unknown poison (oregano phosphorus). It is an admitted position that the wife of the applicant as well as the applicant were present at the matrimonial home immediately prior to her being rushed to the Barkat Ram Hospital. When the wife of the applicant was certified fit by the doctors concerned, in her statement to the police she alleged that she was being tortured for dowry and that at the behest of her mother-in-law, the present applicant gave her a blow and after sitting over her closed her nose and poured poison into her mouth. It is also a part of her statement before the police that thereafter both, the mother-in-law as well as her husband (present applicant) closed the door from outside. The wife of the applicant has also alleged a threat to her life from the applicant. The subject FIR was registered on a complaint at the instance of the wife when she called up the police and the PCR Van that

¶26

BAIL APPLN.2694/2015

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

responded to the said call and rushed her to the hospital. The doctor, who authored the MLC, has clearly opined that the injury was grievous and gastric lavage has been sent to FSL, Rohini for a report in this behalf.

¶29

7. In view of the foregoing and after noticing that the applicant has a

¶30

criminal record and is prima facie guilty of the commission of an offence under Sections 307/498-A IPC; the seriousness and gravity of the charges levelled against him by his own wife, the present application, which has been filed at a time when the investigation into the subject FIR is still ongoing, is

¶31

dismissed.
8. Dasti.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

¶32

DECEMBER 11, 2015
dn

¶33

BAIL APPLN.2694/2015

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Pankaj Gautam v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Gautam v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi)

Naresh Kumar and Others Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi)

Vijay Khanna & Anr. Vs State

Jasbir Singh Panja Labana & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mohd Farman & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.

Shakeel & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.