* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Bail Application No. 53/2010 % Date of Decision: 19th April, 2010 # VISHAL ARORA .....PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Anand Maheshwari, Advocate. VERSUS $ THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State along with SI Jaivir Singh. Complainant with her counsel Mr. R.K. Singh. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner is the husband and he seeks his anticipatory bail in a criminal case against him under Sections 406/498-A/341/354/506 IPC vide FIR No. 390/2008, Police Station Ashok Vihar. 2. Mr. Jaideep Malik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is present on behalf of the State and the complainant along with her counsel Mr.R.K. Singh is also present. 3. Arguments on this bail application have been heard. 4. The anticipatory bail prayed for by the petitioner is opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground that the petitioner has not returned the dowry and jewellery of the complainant so far. Mr.Malik, Bail Application No. 53/2010 Page 1 of 4 learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has also opposed this bail application on the ground that the petitioner had given beatings to the complainant in the incident that took place in his house in September 2008 and the complainant had suffered injuries, which are supported by the MLC. On being asked, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, says that the injuries suffered by the complainant are opined to be simple in nature. 5. Mr. Anand Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the petitioner has been falsely roped in the present case only on account of matrimonial dispute between him and his wife. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, there is absolutely no truth in the accusations made by the complainant in the FIR in question. 6. This Court would not like to express any opinion on the merits of the accusations made by the complainant in the FIR. The complainant is present in Court and I have discussed the matter with her to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties, either to live together or settle the dispute by accepting one time settlement. The complainant says that she has two children, one is aged 3 years and a 10 years old daughter, who are both presently living with her. The complainant says that she wants to live with her husband and is interested in saving her marriage. Mr. Anand Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that his client is also open for an amicable settlement and will make his best efforts to see that the parties may re- unite, if possible, if not in their own interest but in the interest of their children. This Court hopes and expect that the efforts for settlement between the parties should succeed one day. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, this Court Bail Application No. 53/2010 Page 2 of 4 is of the opinion that in case, the petitioner husband is denied bail and is sent to jail, then it will close all possibilities of parties living together as husband and wife. In fact, if for some reason settlement between the parties for living together does not materialise and in that event if the petitioner has committed any criminal act during subsistence of his marriage with the complainant, he is bound to be punished in accordance with law, if the charges against him are proved. It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every accused person is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved against him in a regular trial. 8 In my opinion, the petitioner cannot be denied bail on the ground that dowry and jewellery of the complainant has not been returned so far. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken a stand that the entire dowry and jewellery has already been returned to her. There seems to be a dispute between the parties on this aspect. If her dowry and jewellery is not returned, then she may take proper proceedings before the competent Court for return of dowry and jewellery as per law. 9 It is expected that both the parties shall make efforts to re-unite so that marriage between them may be saved at least in the interest of their two children, who are living with their mother, being the complainant. 10 The petitioner is stated to a permanent resident of Delhi and is stated to have clean antecedents. There is no apprehension of his fleeing from justice. 11 In the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, it is ordered that the petitioner may be released on bail in the event of his arrest on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The Bail Application No. 53/2010 Page 3 of 4 petitioner is directed that he shall participate in the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. In the event the petitioner fails to participate in the investigation, then the State will be at liberty to apply for cancellation of his bail. APRIL 19, 2010 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'BSR' Bail Application No. 53/2010 Page 4 of 4