Petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to her former husband and current respondents. The Court held that no ground was made out for cancellation, noting the Sessions Judge exercised discretion fairly despite FIR delay, and dismissed the plea.
Petition for cancellation of bail granted to respondent nos. 2 and 3 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~7
Through Mr.V.Madhukar, Mr.Jayendra Sevada and Ms.Anvita Cowshish, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP along with SI Pawan Kumar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R % 05.01.2016
Crl.M.A.No.91/2016 Crl.M.A.No.92/2016 CRL.M.C. 18/2016
Petitioner is seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent nos.2 and 3 (husband and wife) by the order of the Sessions Judge dated 15.12.2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident reported by the victim was gory; the allegations being serious. The order granting anticipatory protection to the respondents especially when the Investigating Officer made a statement that custodial interrogation of the respondent was required is an illegality and is liable to be set aside.
On advance notice, learned APP for the State has made his
submission.
Record has been perused. The order dated 15.12.2015 has also been perused.
The present FIR has been registered on the complaint of the petitioner. The FIR is under Sections 498A/406/376/34 of the IPC. Husband of the victim Amit Sahni is stated to be in judicial custody. The respondents before this Court are husband and wife who are stated to be the friend of the husband of the victim. The allegations by and large in the FIR apart from the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand relate to wife swapping. The incident as per the victim occurred in February, 2011 but the matter was admittedly reported in November, 2015. In June, 2015 the victim started living separately away from her husband. All these facts have been noted by the Sessions Judge in the correct perspective. He has noted that there is an unexplainable delay in lodging the FIR. The incident having occurred in February, 2015 and matter having been reported only in November, 2015, the Sessions Judge in view of this Court has exercised his discretion fairly and judiciously. This Court also notes that the parameters for granting bail are distinct from the parameters required for cancellation of bail.
No ground is made out for cancellation of bail granted to respondent nos.2 and 3.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
JANUARY 05, 2016/ ndn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the grounds cited are sufficient to warrant cancellation of bail already granted by the Sessions Judge.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR invalidates the bail order.
NEHA SAINI
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS
INDERMEET KAUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
