Allowed

Sudhir Kumar v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Delhi HC16 Sept 2016BAIL APPLN./484/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowing a bail application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry allegations, granting bail subject to payment of additional amounts and furnishing a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail to be released on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 40,000 with one surety; directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh more to complainant within two weeks.

Sudhir Kumar Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

BAIL APPLN. 484/2016 SUDHIR KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through : Mr.Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate with Mr.Bishnu Tiwari, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP with SI B.Singh, PS M.S.Park. Mr.Mukesh K.Mishra, Advocate for the complainant.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG O R D E R

¶8

% 16.09.2016

¶9

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.39/16 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Mansarovar Park. Status report is on record.

¶10

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the counsel for the complainant and have examined the file. By an order dated 07.04.2016, the petitioner was granted interim protection and was directed to join the investigation as and when required. Undisputedly, the petitioner has joined the investigation since then. The matter was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre to explore the possibility of settlement. However, the matter could not be resolved there.

¶11

BAIL APPLN. 484/2016

¶12

page 1 of 2

¶13

It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before the Mediation Centre the complainant had agreed to settle the dispute on payment of 5 lacs and out of which 2.5 lacs was given to her by way of demand draft. Learned counsel for the complainant denies it and states that payment of `2.5 lacs was given pursuant to the order of the Court at the time of grant of interim bail.

¶14

The marriage between the parties took place on 15.12.2014. Order dated 12.02.2016 reveals that the petitioner has joined the investigation on various dates. 2.5 lacs have already been given to the complainant. Let 1 lac more be given to the complainant within two weeks through Investigating Officer without prejudice and subject to future adjustment towards dowry articles.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the payment of 3.5 lacs referred above to the complainant, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail and in the event of arrest, he be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of 40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating officer. He shall, however, join the investigation as and when required.

¶16

The bail application stands disposed of.

¶17

S.P.GARG, J

¶18

SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 / tr

¶19

page 2 of 2

¶20

BAIL APPLN. 484/2016

Sudhir Kumar v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

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

Vimal Mahipal Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ram Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Satbeer Singh Vs the State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Santosh Kumar & Anr. Vs State & Anr.

Sarvesh Kumar Bhatia Vs Narcotics Control Bureau & Anr.