Delhi High Court - Orders
Pankaj Joshi vs The State & Anr on 1 June, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1473/2022
PANKAJ JOSHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Haneef Mohammad, Mr. Kamal
Pal & Md. Maroof, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State.
Mr. Anand Prakash Sharma, Mr. C.P.
Nautiyal & Mr. Rakesh Saini,
Advocates for Complainant with
Complainant in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 01.06.2022 The applicant vide the present application seeks the grant of bail in relation to FIR No.385/2021, PS Aman Vihar, which application has in fact been filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and thus is an application seeking grant of anticipatory bail qua alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The submissions made on behalf of the applicant are to the effect that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case; that the applicant is the brother-in-law (jeth) of the complainant; that the complainant was not residing at her matrimonial home on the date of the alleged incident and that the same is borne out from a missing complaint dated 22.12.2019 lodged by the mother-in-law of the complainant; and that furthermore, there had been a BAIL APPLN. 1473/2022 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:25:18 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
mediation settlement dated 08.11.2019 between the husband of the complainant and the complainant; and that the complainant was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial home without informing anyone. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that there is a transcript of a conversation between an advocate and a lady from the NGO as well as inclusive of the complainant to contend to the effect that there was an attempt made by the complainant along with her counsel to falsely implicate the applicant, her jeth/brother-in-law who was residing outside, qua which it had been stated by the complainant that they would take legal action against him as well.
The application is vehemently opposed on behalf of the State and on behalf of the complainant.
The aspect of a mediation settlement dated 08.11.2019 at Haldwani is not refuted by the complainant, and she states that thereafter, she had been residing with her husband but had been turned out from the matrimonial home on 21.12.2019. In the context of this submission made by the complainant that she had been turned out from the matrimonial home on 21.12.2019, the complaint filed on 22.12.2019 that she was missing from the matrimonial home would essentially have to be gauged only at trial and cannot be accepted presently.
In view of the submission made by the complainant that she had been turned out from her matrimonial home, the applicant though he contends that he resides in Myanmar (erstwhile Burma) does not refute the factum that on the date of the alleged incident as detailed in the FIR in question i.e., 22.10.2019, he was living in India but refutes the factum of the complainant BAIL APPLN. 1473/2022 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:25:18 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
living at her matrimonial home with it having been submitted that in the mediation settlement dated 08.11.2019, there is not a whisper of an averment in relation to any allegations against the applicant herein and if they had been true, they would have been incorporated therein.
Without any observations on the merits or demerits of the trial that may take place, taking into account the factum that a settlement had been arrived at between the complainant and her spouse on 08.11.2019, apparently the said settlement would be only for the complainant to ensure that her matrimonial home is preserved and the same cannot detract from the allegations levelled by the complainant against the applicant as are also mentioned in her statement recorded under Sections 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, which has been annexed to the status report.
Though the applicant seeks to contend placing reliance on the conversation between the complainant, her lawyer and a lady from the NGO, as has been rightly contended on behalf of the complainant, it is indicated that through the list of dates that the applicant has filed, it has been stated that the brother of the petitioner (an apparent reference to the spouse of the complainant) recovered an audio recording of the phone of the complainant in which the counsel for the complainant hatched a conspiracy with the complainant and NGO to rope the allegations of rape on the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the complainant that this itself is an indication of the commission of an offence of hacking of the phone of the complainant.
The said transcript that has been placed on record on behalf of the applicant is not accompanied by any certificate under Section 65B of the BAIL APPLN. 1473/2022 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:25:18 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and thus cannot be perused nor considered presently, though it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the same would be filed.
Taking into account the averments made in the list of dates and events filed by the applicant itself, the contention raised on behalf of the complainant that the said transcript is pursuant to an alleged hacking of the phone of the complainant cannot presently be overlooked.
In the circumstances, there is no ground for an anticipatory bail. The application is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J JUNE 1, 2022 ha BAIL APPLN. 1473/2022 Page 4 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:25:18 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.