* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Bail Application No. 661/2010 % Date of Decision: 19th April, 2010 # SURENDER .....PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate. VERSUS $ THE STATE OF NCT DELHI .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State along with Insp. Ram Kishan, IO of the case. Mr. B.S. Sharma, Adv. for the complainant 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, who seeks his anticipatory bail in a criminal case under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC against him vide FIR No. 38/2009 with Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, is the husband of the complainant. 2. Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice of this bail application on behalf of the State. Mr. B.S. Sharma is also present on behalf of the complainant. 3. Arguments on this bail application have been heard. 4. Mr. Ashok Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner has been falsely roped by his wife in the present criminal case only on account of matrimonial dispute with her. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Bail Application No. 661/2010 Page 1 of 3 submits that petitioner's brother-in-law (brother of his wife namely Mr. Azad Singh) is in police service and he is pressuring the Investigating Officer to coerce the petitioner for agreeing to the terms of his wife. The petitioner was married with the complainant on 24.11.2004. On account of matrimonial dispute between the couple, the petitioner was forced to leave his own home by his wife in October 2009. Thereafter, the FIR in question was got registered by his wife against the petitioner. 5. Mr. R.N. Vats, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed this bail application on the ground that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of dowry and istridhan articles of the complainant wife which, according to him, have not been recovered so far. 6. In the opinion of this Court, this cannot be a ground to deny bail to the petitioner. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless the charges leveled against him are proved in a proper trial. Since the dispute that led to registration of FIR in question against the petitioner has arisen on account of matrimonial incompatibilities between the couple, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. He is stated to be a permanent resident of Delhi and there is no apprehension of his fleeing from justice. He is stated to have clean antecedents. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The petitioner is directed to participate in the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. With the consent of counsel on both sides, the first date for appearance of the petitioner before the Investigating Officer for Bail Application No. 661/2010 Page 2 of 3 the purposes of his interrogation is fixed at 10:00 AM on 21.04.2010. APRIL 19, 2010 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'BSR' Bail Application No. 661/2010 Page 3 of 3