* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + (1) BAIL APPLNNO.2127/2008 # SMT. AZAD KAUR .. Petitioner Through Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Amita Sehgal Mathur and Mr. Satinder Singh Mathur, Advs. for the petitioner I Versus STATE .... Respondent Through : Mr. P.K.Wadhwa with Mr. V.K.Gupta, Advs. for the respondent. BAIL APPLNNO2193/2008 # SH.RAJ KU MAR .... Petitioner Through : Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Amita Sehgal Mathur and Mr. Satinder Singh Mathur, Advs. for the petitioner Versus STATE .... Respondent Through : Mr. P.K.Wadhwa with Mr. V.K.Gupta, Advs. for the respondent. BAIL APPLN.NO.2194/2008 # SMT. MANJU .... ,Petitioner Through : Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Amita Sehgal Mathur and Mr. SatinderSingh Mathur, • • Advs. for the petitioner Versus • STATE .... Respondent Through Mr. P.K.Wadhwa with Mr. V.K.Gupta, • Advs. for the respondent. ORDER % 08.04.2009 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified c CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the Judgment should be reported inthe Digest? G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL): Application for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed by the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. All, the three applications have been heard together and are being disposed of bya common order. It is submitted by Mr. Luthra that primarily two allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. One relating to demand of dowry and the second that a pre-natal examination was forcefully conducted on the complainant and on learning that the fetus was of a girl child the petitioners forced her to swallow some tablets after which her condition deteriorated and she was taken to Parivar Seva Sanstha and forced for an abortion. Mr. Luthra contends that both the allegations are false. Mr. Luthra has drawn the attention of the Court to the MTP Intake Sheet of Parivar Seva Sanstha where the fetus was aborted to show that the complainant was accompanied by none of the family members of the petitioner but a friend called Pooja whose name finds mention in this sheet. Further in her own handwriting the complainant has given 'a i declaration that no Prenatal Diagnostic Test for the purpose of sex determination of fetus has been done. Further, the reason shown for termination of the pregnancy is "in order to prevent injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman". Thus it is contended that allegations made against the petitioners are patently false. 3. It is next contended by Mr. Luthra that all items of the complainant, if not returned, including Maruti Esteem, car which stands in the name of the mother of the complainant fr I shall be returned to the complainant within three days from today. Mr. Luthra further submits that according to his instructions all items of jewellery have been returned. Mr. Luthra also submits that the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation and that even otherwise there is no possibility of their tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses as being a matrimonial dispute most of the witnesses are likely to be close family members. Counsel for the complainantdisputes the statement that all items of the complainant have been returned. It is submitted that in fact in a notice issued to the complainant it has been admitted that dowry items are yet to be returned further in a petition for grant of divorce the petitioners have given a listof dowry items which are in their possession. 0411-1- Mr.Luthra submits that petitioners wish to deposit a sum of Rs.8.0 lakhs in the form of an FDR'in the name of ACMM. Further - counsel for the parties jointly submitthat the application for grant of maintenance has already been argued and is listed for.. pronouncement of orders on 15.4.2009. This matter was taken up in Chambers while the complainant expressed her willingness to join to the matrimonial home, the, husband was not inclined to take the complainant back taking in view ..the serious nature of allegations which have been levelled agaInst him and his family. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties and taking into consideration • that the petitioners have volunteered to return the Maruti Esteem car and remaining items, if any, and also deposit a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs with the trial court and also having regard to the fact that the complainant is still inclined to join the matrimonial hom, the petitioners, in the event of arrest, shall be released on bail on their furnishing bond of Rs.30,000/- each with one surety . • • of the like amount in each case to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO/Arresting Officersubject to the condition that they will nbt contact the witnesses and not tamper with the evidence. All petitions stand disposed of. . . The 'sum of Rs.8 lakhs shall be deposited in the form of a FDR in the name of the trial court initially, for a period of six r.. months which FDR shall be renewed from time to time and a direction will be given to the appropriate bank. FDR be made within two weeks from today and the -amount deposited shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 7. Dasti. G.S. SISTANI, J. April 08, 2009 'mm' P1