Section 498A - Bail

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: JUSTICE S. Ravindra Bhat

Narinder Kaur Vs. State (nct Of Delhi) & Anr. On 6 June 2007

Law Point:
Sections 498A, 406 — Bail — Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust — Grant of bail subject to condition of payment of Rs. 50,000/- by petitioner mother-in-law — Setting aside of condition in interest of justice — Court cannot view exercise of such powers in isolation of all attendant facts — It is unclear as to when complainant picked up quarrel with petitioner and did not receive articles, when offered to her.

JUDGEMENT

1. The present petition, under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is preferred against an order of the learned Addl. Dist. Judge (hereafter “the Trial Court’‘) dated 9.5.2005 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the respondent No. 2 (hereafter referred to as the daughter-in-law).

2. The brief facts necessary to decide this present petition are that the respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint against her mother-in-law (the petitioner in the present case), the father in law and her husband under Sections 498A/406, IPC. She alleged in the complaint that she was harassed and tortured for dowry and was allegedly thrown out of her matrimonial house.

3. It is alleged by the petitioner that since the inception of marriage the complainant had demanded a separate residence. The couple moved into a separate rented accommodation at Naraina in the year 2003. At the time of leaving the matrimonial house, the complainant/ respondent No. 2 took all her articles and jewellery with her. The remaining articles such as furniture, utensils, etc. were all shifted to Naraina Vihar. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 moved out of her matrimonial home and is now living with her parents. Two sons were born out of the wedlock. The petitioner submitted that the Stridhan is with her son i.e. the husband of respondent No. 2 and the learned ASJ directed the applicant/petitioner to return all the dowry articles. The petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 2 picked up a quarrel with them and did not take the articles in spite of their being offered to her.

4. The petitioner further alleges and submits that her husband was released on anticipatory bail. She was granted anticipatory bail on 9.5.2005 with a condition that she had to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of a bank draft in the name of the complainant. The extracts of the order dated 9.5.2005 are as follows:

“It is directed that whatever goods are with the accused/applicant’s son should be deposited by them with the I.O. in the presence of the complainant. It is directed that she will deposit with the I.O. a bank draft of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the complainant within one week.”

5. It was submitted that the petitioner’s son has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1.25 lakh in favour and the name of the complainant, which was a condition to the grant of his anticipatory bail. The petitioner has filed a list of household articles that were returned to the respondent No. 2 and a list of Stridhan articles, which was being held back by the husband of respondent No. 2. It was urged that the petitioner had suggested to her son to return the articles but respondent No. 2 picked up a quarrel and did not receive them.

6. The respondent No. 2 appeared and contested the proceeding. She is presently residing with her parents along with her 2 school going sons. Her husband, the second respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as a without prejudice amount. She claimed that the husband is an employed and is earning well, in excess of Rs. 25,000 per month; yet he is reluctant to pay for the maintenance of his minor children. They are looked after by the respondent No. 2 alone, who is a working woman. The complainant respondent alleged that the dowry articles were not returned to her; neither was the condition for the petitioner’s bail fulfilled. She stated that though the condition for payment of Rs. 50,000/- to her could not be insisted, at this stage, and though she she is earning, the educational expenses of the two children alone work out to over Rs. 8,000/- per month, which should be borne by the husband.

7. The facts show that the petitioner’s grievance is limited to the condition imposed, for payment of Rs. 50,000/- as a condition for grant of bail to her, by the trial Court. The respondent complainant (wife) and the husband, who also appeared in the Court pursuant to directions, are both working, and earning well. Nevertheless, the accused husband has not paid amounts towards the maintenance, at least of the minor children. An attempt was made to persuade him to at least pay some amount towards the educational needs of the minor children; his objection was rooted to the alleged non-cooperation of the complainant wife in allowing custody to, or visitation rights, in respect of the minor children.

8. It is unclear as to when the complainant picked up a quarrel with the petitioner and did not receive the articles, when offered to her. Yet, a few things of importance have to be noticed. Both the parties are earning well. The respondent’s husband, during course of the proceedings, paid Rs. 60,000/- to her; in addition, he had earlier deposited Rs. 1,25,000/-. Although grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the primary considerations which weigh with the Court are the nature of accusations, and likelihood of the accused to attend the hearings during investigation or trial, if the accused is granted bail, occasionally, Courts do grant the relief, by imposing the condition of paying certain amounts. In that sense, the exercise of discretion, per se, cannot be called as illegal. However, the Court cannot view the exercise of such powers in isolation of all attendant facts. Here, the husband had deposited Rs. 1,25,000/-. During these proceedings, the complainant wife had received Rs.60,000/-. She further had stated her disinterest in receiving Rs. 50,000/- which was a condition for the bail of the petitioner. In these circumstances, even though the conduct of the husband might otherwise be reprehensible, from the complainant’s point of view, that fact cannot be conclusive in holding that the condition impugned should be upheld. The parties are in dispute in other Fora. In these circumstances, having regard to the overall conspectus of facts, I am of the considered opinion that interests of justice would not be subserved in continuing with the condition of the petitioner’s paying Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant daughter-in-law.

9. In the light of the above discussion, the petition is entitled to succeed; it is accordingly allowed to the extent that the condition of the petitioner paying Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent-complainant, in the order of the trial Court granting bail, to the petitioner, is hereby set aside. The petition is allowed in the above terms.

Petition allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us