I $-24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2442/2011 % tudgmentdelivered on: 1st August, 2011 KAPIL SETHI ..... Petitioner Through:Mr. Mir Akhtar Hussain, Adv. Versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondents CORAM: Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State Mr. K.K. Manan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nipul Bhardwaj. Mr. Mustafa Arif, Mr. Ashish Garg and Ms. Poonam Yadav, Advocates HON.BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KA!T 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURESH KAIT, J. {ORAL) Crl. IVLA. No. 8833/2011 Exemption allowed, subject to ail just except!ons. CRLM.C. 2442/2011 1. The present petition has been fi!ed to challenge the order dated 23.07.2011 wherein the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dwarka has observed that it was contended by ld. APP for the State assisted Cri.M.C.2442/2011 Page 1 of 4 ;" Signing Date:22.08.2024 16:42:42 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 2- by ld. Counsel for the complainant that since her marriage in 2006, the complainant has been subjected to untold atrocities and miseries by the applicant. The passport of the complainant was snatched and she was left alone to die without any food and place to live. She then had to sEek an emergency proteo::ion order wherein the applicant/husband was directed to rernove himself from tile apartment. 2. It was further pointed out by the APP that ail the incidents of crt.:elty have been detailed in the FIR. Af'i:er bein9 ;ssued with repeated notices, the petitioner r.as the invt:stigution. Even now the petitioner has only carne back to India as his visa had expired. After 1iling l1is bail application he intt:ndE:d to flr:e und v:ar::. gaining Ume by keep1ng the :-nattEr pending Gn the pretext of compromise. 3. lt was further observed by the ld. /l.ddl. that ; the F:R in this case was reg>;terecl on 07.2010. The applicant did not join the investigat:on for abo:.Jt 10 months. 4. The learned ASJ has further that in the evet1t of arrest. applicant be granted interim anticipatory bail for a p-2riod of two months on his exectltlng a personal bond in surr. of f 50,000/- with one surety in the jike 2mount to the satisfaction of ·10/SHO concerned, subj;::ct to conditior. that he shall join the investigation as when callerJ and not leave the country Cri.M.C.Z-442/2011 Pc;ge 2 of 4 3 till further orders from the court and t.he passport of the applicant shall remain with 10 till further orders. Meanwhile, 10 shall conduct the investigation fairly and expeditiously and the matter was ordered to be listed on 24.09.2011 for consideration of bail. 5. Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge after granting two months interim protection have postponed the matter for 24.09.2011. He submits that a long date would cause prejudice to the petitioner, as he has to go back abroad. 6. I have perused the notices sent by Insp. Prem Lata, CAW Cell, Nanakpura. It appears that five nctices have been sent one after the other. First notice was sent in July, 2010 and last notice was sent on 01.04.2011. 7. The petitioner had arrived in India on 30.05.2011 at t1is leisure and pleasure. He did not bother about the proceedings pending against him in India. The court has granted him interim protection also. 8. He wants the investigation to go on as per his own style. Insp. Prem Lata, CAVV Cell, Nanakpura, who is personGIIypre!itmt in the Court, submits that she is handling a number of cases and has to attend Court proceedings since morning to evenlng; and that even today, it is 4 p.m. and she is waiting for her turn, therefore, the investigation cannot be conducted in a supersonlc Cri.M.C.2442/2011 Page 3 d4 7 speed as per the petitioners' wish, on the priority basis. 9. In my opinion,' the petitioner is under protection, therefore, his rights are not prejudiced. He can wait till the investigation is complete. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and previous conduct of the petitioner, I do not find aPy merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. AUGUST 01, 2011 RS Cri.M.C.2442/2011 SURESH KAIT, J Page 4 of 4