Final Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Application No.
State v. (1) Rahul Kumar
(2) Meena Devi
(3) Phool Babu Singh
FIR No. 24/2019
PS Mandir Marg
U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
12.07.2021
Present : Sh. Dharam Chand, Ld. Addl. PP for State through VC.
Complainant Deepa Kumar is present through VC.
Sh. B.N Gaur, Ld. counsel for applicants / accused through VC.
Vide this common order, I shall dispose of three anticipatory bail
applications moved on behalf of accused Rahul Kumar, Meena Devi and Phool
Singh as these are arising out of the same FIR.
It is submitted in the applications that the applicants have clean
antecedents. The complainant has made false and fabricated complaint before
CAW cell. It is further submitted that on the basis of the allegations made in the
FIR, no offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC is made out. The applicants have been
falsely implicated in this case. The applicants are ready to abide by all the terms
and conditions which may be imposed by the court.
In the reply. it is submitted that on 10.07.2021, Rahul, Rajesh
Kumar (brother in law) and Phool Babu were interrogated about the details of
Rs. 11 lacs. It is further submitted that during interrogation, Rajesh Kumar had
informed that he had received a cheque of Rs.2.50 lacs from the father of the
complainant which was cleared in his account. He had given 08 blank cheques
to his younger brother Rahul. He denied the cash payment of Rs.1 lac. It is
further submitted that during interrogation, Phool Babu informed that he had
received Rs.2.50 lacs from the father of the complainant through cheque. This
amount was spent for jewellery and shagun/ rasam. He had purchased jewellery
worth Rs.1,58,989/- and the remaining amount was paid as Shagun/ rasam to
-- 1 of 3 --
the complainant and her relatives. He denied receiving Rs.1.25 lacs in cash from
the father of the complainant. It is further submitted that during interrogation,
Rahul had informed that he had also received Rs.2.50 lacs through cheque from
the father of the complainant. He also informed that he had paid Rs.1.08 lacs to
the complainant for purchasing house hold articles and Rs.1 lac was spent on
jewelry which they had gifted to the relatives of the complainant. He has further
informed that his in-laws had given him Rs.51,000/- on roka, Rs.21,000/- on
ring ceremony and Rs.21,000/- on lagan. It is further submitted that during the
course of inquiry, the complainant had produced one CD showing that the father
of the complainant had paid cash amount to Phool Singh and to Rajesh Kumar.
The said CD has been seized.
Ld. Cl. For accused has contended that the entire money that was
received through cheques from the side of bride was spent on the bride, her
jewelry, paying shagun to her family and household articles. He thus contends
that the said amount is not to be repaid. Otherwise the accused are ready to
return the entire stridhan. On being asked about the jewelry, he submits that
entire jewelry has been taken by the complainant.
Ld. Addl. PP duly assisted by IO submits that custody of the
applicant is required for recovery of stridhan. He contends that complainant has
stated in the FIR that she was only allowed take that jewelry whichwas given by
her parents.
I have considered the submissions made in the applications as well
as the reply filed by the IO.
As per the reply, there were at least three transactions of Rs.2.50
lacs made in the account of Rahul, Rajesh Kumar and Phool Singh. They were
asked to explain these transactions and they submitted that out of the said
money, Rs.1.50 lac was spent on purchase of jewelry. However, the said jewelry
is stated to be with them as the complainant was only allowed to take the
jewelry which was given by her parents.
-- 2 of 3 --
For the rest of the money, it is submitted that Rs.1 lac was spent on
purchase of some more jewelry, for which the receipts have been provided and
some money was spent for shaguns/ rasams. However, there is no evidence for
the same. For the rest of the money there is no explanation and no assurance to
return it. It is to be seen that despite repeated opportunities being given, stridhan
and the above said money has not been returned.
It is submitted by the IO that custody of applicant is required for
recovery of stridhan and the money mentioned above.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances and the fact that
recovery of stridhan is yet to be made, I do not find any grounds for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicants. The applications at hand are accordingly
dismissed. Order be uploaded on website of Delhi District Court. Copy of order
be placed in other two connected bail applications.
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03/NDD/PHC/New Delhi
12.07.2021:(Through VC)
It is certified that Video Conferencing was held in an uninterrupted
manner and during the proceedings, no objections were raised by either of the
parties regarding the connectivity i.e. audio or visual quality.
Reader/12.07.2021
-- 3 of 3 --