Roshni Devi Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 692/2024, registered at Police Station Paharganj, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)/406/420/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘ IPC ’).

¶11

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant alleged that she came in contact with the co-accused Somvir Rathi in the year 2022 through an online matrimonial platform, where he had represented himself to be unmarried. Relying on his representations, the complainant had agreed to marry him and an Arya Samaj marriage was solemnized on 09.03.2023. It is alleged that thereafter, the complainant was subjected to sexual exploitation, deception, and repeated monetary demands by the accused. The complainant further alleged that the accused had taken substantial amounts of money

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 11:52:07

¶14

from her on various occasions and had also compelled her to purchase expensive articles, including a mobile phone. It is further alleged that the accused had concealed his earlier marriages, and upon confrontation, started blackmailing the complainant using obscene photographs and threats. As regards the role of the applicant herein, it is alleged that after the social marriage of the complainant with the co-accused which took place on 26.07.2024, the complainant was taken to the matrimonial home, where the mother-in-law and sister-in-law allegedly pressurised her for dowry, taunted her for bringing insufficient articles, and demanded either a luxury car or cash of ₹15 lakhs. It is further alleged that the mother-in-law took possession of the complainant’s jewellery and stridhan and later returned fake ornaments while retaining the original jewellery, claiming that the same had been kept in a bank locker. The complainant further alleged that during her pregnancy, she was neglected and financially abandoned. It is also alleged that despite repeated requests, her jewellery, cash, and other stridhan articles were not returned. On these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered, and the mother of the main accused has been arrayed as an accused in the present case.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the present FIR is a result of matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband i.e. co-accused Sombir. It is stated that the present applicant is the mother-in-law of the complainant, who is old and ailing, and has nothing to do with the offence in question. It is also argued that there are no specific allegations against the applicant herein. It is further contended that the complainant claims to have been aware of the co-accused’s alleged behavior and character, yet she willingly and repeatedly provided her with money,

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 11:52:07

¶18

stayed with her in hotels, and married her twice – first through a court ceremony and a second time with full religious rituals and ceremonies, which shows that she has concocted a false story in the FIR. Therefore, it is prayed that the present application for grant of anticipatory bail be allowed.

¶19

The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, argues that the complainant has indeed leveled certain specific allegations against the present applicant in the FIR, and the overall allegations against the accused persons are serious in nature. It is also argued that the applicant has not joined and cooperated with the investigation yet. It is therefore prayed that the present bail application be dismissed.

¶20

This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the sides and has perused the material available on record. 6. Having heard rival contentions and gone through the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled against the present applicant pertain to the offence under Section 406 of IPC. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the complainant, and the principal allegations in the complaint are directed against the husband/co-accused, who is the son of the present applicant, who already stands arrested. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has further undertaken that the applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer.

¶21

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, and in event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/I.O concerned on the following terms and conditions:

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 11:52:07

¶24

i) The applicant is directed to join the investigation on 15.01.2026 at 04:00 PM and will continue to cooperate with the I.O. concerned. ii) The applicant shall remain available on the mobile number, shared by her with the I.O./SHO concerned. In case of change of residential address/contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned I.O/SHO.

¶25

ii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned Court, and shall also surrender her passport with the SHO concerned.

¶26

iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make an attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶27

The bail application stands disposed of.

¶28

However, it is clarified that failure on the part of the applicant to join the investigation or to cooperate with the I.O. shall be a ground for seeking cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.

¶29

It is also clarified that nothing expressed in this order shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

¶30

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶31

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶32

JANUARY 13, 2026/zp TD

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 11:52:07

Roshni Devi v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshni Devi v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinki Singh Vs Laxmi Negi

Dr Avadesh Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi and Another

Kamlesh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Mohamed Mudashshir Vs Narcotic Control Bureau

Fardeen Vs State (N.C.T.of Delhi)

Ankit Jain Vs State of NCT of Delhi