Home > Bail Judgement > Hon’ble Dhingra rejects application to cancel Husband’s bail :)

Hon’ble Dhingra rejects application to cancel Husband’s bail :)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: 27th January, 2011

Date of Order: February, 2011

+ Crl. MC No.3599 /2009

% 11.02.2011 Shabana …Petitioner Versus

Mohd. Irfan & Anr. …Respondents Counsels:

Mr. S.D. Ansari and Mr. G.D. Ahmed for petitioner.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar for respondent.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER

1. This application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant who is wife of the respondent no.1 for cancellation of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 6th September 2007. The husband/ respondent no.1 herein is involved in a case under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The bail order shows that the parties had three children and out of three children, two children were with the husband, one of them was a handicapped child, while one child was with the wife/ complainant/ petitioner. It was also noted by this Court that all the dowry articles had been received by the complainant and she had executed an affidavit to that effect. This Court also directed that the husband who was working as an Assistant to a Homeopathic doctor and earning Rs.3500/- per month, shall continue to pay Rs.500/- to the wife. The Court granted Crl.MC 3599/2009 Page 1 Of 2 anticipatory bail to the respondent no.1 herein.

2. The cancellation of anticipatory bail is sought on the ground that she has learnt that the police has scraped charge under Section 406 IPC qua respondent no.1 and on the ground that respondent no.1 had misled the court that two of the children were with him and it was also wrongly represented that all dowry articles had been returned.

3. This petition for cancellation of bail seems to be a counterblast to the petition filed by the husband and other accused persons before this Court for quashing of FIR. This Court granted anticipatory bail to the husband/ respondent no.1 for cogent and just grounds. I find no ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent no.1. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner/wife that the husband misled the trial court has no force. The petition is hereby dismissed.

February 11, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

Advertisements
Categories: Bail Judgement
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: