Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required was upheld by the High Court Of Delhi through the learned bench led by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR in the case of MANISH DEV MALHOTRA Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (BAIL APPLN. 145/2021) on 06.05.2022.
Brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of Ms. Bhawana Sharma FIR was registered wherein, the complainant stated that she got married to Manish Dev Malhotra (Petitioner herein) on 19.01.2020 and prior to their marriage, it was told that the petitioner is an MBA and he was running a designer studio in Bali Nagar, Delhi and the father of the petitioner was having a factory of Generator Set in Maya Puri, Delhi. The complainant alleged that the family of the complainant spent huge amount to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs in premarriage and marriage functions, including belongings given to the petitioner and his family members, which are now lying with the petitioner and his family. The complainant was also forced to resign from service after her marriage and when parents of the complainant came to her matrimonial house to congratulate on her pregnancy, she was forcibly sent to her parental house and was further subjected to harassment and character assassination by the petitioner and her in-laws. It is alleged that on 18.06.2020, complainant was pressurized for MTP and thus, her brother took her to her parental house, but her in-laws got her missing report lodged despite forcibly sending her to the parental home and it is alleged that the petitioner as well as his family members made no effort to take her back.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant and has been falsely implicated only on the basis of general and vague allegations levelled by her in the FIR. The FIR reveals no allegations of demand of dowry and the incidents mentioned therein, would only relate to normal wear and tear of marriage. A false and imaginary list of dowry articles, such as jewelry and gifts has been placed on record by the complainant and the same are currently in custody of the complainant and not with the petitioner.
Learned APP for the State assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that the recovery of the Apple mobile phone and deciphering the source of photographs is necessary for the sake of investigation as the same will be clear only after sending the photographs, source of photographs and the mobile phone in FSL. The petitioner has joined the investigation but has not cooperated in the investigation proceedings and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of the said mobile phone and for ascertaining the source of the said photographs.
The Court observed, “the ground of parity and the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation, the interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 14.01.2021 is made absolute and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO of the concerned Police Station.”
Click here to read the Judgement
Written by- Riya Singh, Legal Intern, Prime Legal
