Disposed

Rinki Dahiya v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Apr 2018BAIL APPLN./692/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order grants interim protection for four days to the petitioner, Rinki Dahiya, to enable her to approach the competent court in Panipat to seek anticipatory bail in an FIR related to alleged suicide of the complainant's son due to harassment.

What did the court decide?

Grant of interim protection for four days to prevent arrest, allowing the petitioner to approach the competent court in Panipat.

Rinki Dahiya Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~41

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 692/2018

¶4

RINKI DAHIYA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through : Mr.Prabhjit Jauhar, Advocate with Ms.Rosemary Raju & Ms.Upasana Goel, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP. Mr.Deepak Thukral, Deputy AG for State of Haryana.

¶8

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

¶9

% 02.04.2018 CRL.M.A.Nos.5757-58/2018 (Exemption)

¶10

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The applications stand disposed of.

¶12

BAIL APPLN. 692/2018

¶13

The petitioner seeks interim protection in case FIR No.159/2018 registered under Sections 306/34 IPC At PS Chandani Bagh, Distt. Panipat (Haryana).

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The petitioner was married to complainant Deepak Kadiyan on 01.02.2017. Due to matrimonial dispute, the petitioner had returned to her matrimonial home at Delhi from Sonipat and was residing with her parents.

¶15

Allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner’s father-in-law

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

Ram Mehar Kadiyan committed suicide due to alleged harassment caused by petitioner and her family members.

¶18

The petitioner’s only prayer is to grant interim protection to enable her to approach the competent Court at Panipat to seek anticipatory bail in the said FIR.

¶19

Learned Deputy AG for State of Haryana has no objection if interim protection is granted for short duration as there is distance of only around 90 k.m. between Delhi and Panipat and the said Court can be approached within two days.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and to enable the petitioner to approach the competent Court at Panipat to seek appropriate relief in the said FIR, she is granted interim protection for four days from today. The petitioner shall not be arrested in the above FIR during these four days. 7. The petitioner may approach the Court concerned during this period and on expiry of four days from today, the interim protection to the petitioner shall come to an end.

¶21

Observations recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 shall have no impact on merits of the case.

¶22

The bail application stands disposed of.

¶23

Order ‘ dasti. ’

¶24

S.P.GARG, J.

¶25

APRIL 02, 2018 / tr

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Rinki Dahiya v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinki Dahiya v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Vs State

Sonu Bangalan @ Meena Soni @ Anina Khatoon Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Hitachi Payment Services (P) Ltd. Vs NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shiv Kumar Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ravinder Rana Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Parvin Kumar & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.