CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Dhanpati @ Dhanni and Another vs State of Delhi

Delhi High Court · Decided on 2 December 2005 · Citation: (2005) 12 DEL CK 0097

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surinder Kumar Aggarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 406, 498A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application 1045 of 2005
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 215 words

S.K. Agarwal, J.—By this application u/s 438, Cr.P.C. petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in the case FIR No. 126/2005 under Sections 406/498A, IPC, P.S. Alipur, Delhi.

2.

Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner''s son was married to complainant (Nirmal) on 19.4.1995; marriage between the parties could not succeed and on her complaint above noted case was registered. The husband of the complainant was arrested and remained in judicial custody for about 10 days. Thereafter he was released on regular bail. There is no disclosure statement to the effect that jewellery articles are with petitioners. Learned Counsel submits that petitioners have participated in the investigations and nothing is to be recovered from them, Therefore, they are entitled to the anticipatory bail. Learned APP for the State does not contest the factual situation, however opposes the bail, on the ground of the gravity of the offence.

3.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, application is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on each of them furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/Arresting Officer.

Application stands disposed of.

dusty.