of Naman Gupta, the husband of the complainant Neha Gupta while the other petitioners Ashish Gupta, Sumit Goel, Anup Goel and Ankur Garg are his friends. The allegations against these petitioners in the said FIR, particularly relate to the incident of 07.09.2016 wherein two days after ' delivery of the child born to the first inforrnant, they statedly visited her . father's house and made an attempt to take away the new bom baby in the process assaulting the family members of the complainant and members of her paternal family and damaging certain household property. The, allegations against the petitioner Sanjay Singhal include loss of gold chain in the said very incident. The counsel for Sanjay Singhal has pointed out that no such role was attributed to Sanjay Singhal in the FIR, the allegations about his complicity in the loss of gold chain in the said incident having come up in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded later, a contradictory statement having been made in the context of domestic violence act also initiated simultaneously. It is pointed out that on basis of an amicable resolution of part of the dispute with the consent of the complainant's husband Naman Gupta, who was allegedly involved in the same incident as above, with the petitioners he was granted anticipatory bail by the court of Sessions by order dated 07.04.2017. On parity, there is no reason why the petitioners should be denied similar relief Thus, the petitions are allowed. '
