The Delhi high court has passed a judgement on 14-12-2022 in the case of Manisha vs state of Delhi 2022/DHC/005879. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma disposed off the petition by stating some conditions for granting anticipatory bail.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Three separate applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners namely Manisha, Mamta and Omwati seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.251/2022 under Sections 452/354/354- B/323/34 registered at Police Station Kishan Garh.
In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Sanjay Gandas, who happens to be the brother of Manisha and Mamta and son of Omwati. It is alleged that on Holi, a quarrel had taken place between complainant’s wife, mother and sisters and the matter was reported to the Police by both sides. Further, on 26.05.2022, there was a trespass in his premises by Manisha, Devender (Jija), Sandeep (cousin) and his associates Nitesh Bhardwaj and Ashish Yadav, while the complainant was sleeping along with his wife and children. They were further joined by the petitioners Mamta and Omwati. The aforesaid persons assaulted the complainant and his wife, which resulted in injuries on his head and hand. The accused also tried to tear the clothes of his wife, touched her inappropriately and also tried to do “dushkaram” with her. The matter was reported to the Police and the present FIR was accordingly registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputes between the parties have arisen over the distribution of the properties left by the deceased husband of Omwati (i.e. father of complainant and accused Mamta and Manisha). It is contended that there was no alleged trespass since both the properties No. 34/9 and 44/9, Kishan Garh were owned by the husband of Omwati and she is also in possession of the same. He further contended that the relief is sought only on behalf of the petitioners being ladies and all the other co-accused have already visited the Police Station for surrender.
Learned APP for the State, assisted by Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the complainant vehemently opposes the application. It is also refuted that the co-accused are yet to surrender before the Police.
JUDGMENT
The court took reliance from two judgements namely Siddharam Satilingappa Mhetre vs. Sate of Maharashtra (2001) 1 SCC 694 in which it has been stated that the Supreme court while considering matter relating to grant of anticipatory bail and after exahaustively analysing the rights under Article 21 inter alia held that a great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. It was further held that arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community.
The second case was Nathu Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 6 SCC 64, the Supreme Court inter alia held that grant or rejection of an application under Section 438 Cr.PC has a direct bearing on the fundamental right to life and liberty of an individual. Thus, while considering the bail this court has to look into the facts and circumstances of the case so as to ensure that there is no infringement of fundamental rights.
In conclusion while taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances, as recorded in detail by this Court, the petitioners in event of arrest be admitted to anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court subject to some conditions and the court has disposed-off the applications on the those conditions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY ABHINAV CHATURVEDI
Click here to view full judgment
