KAMLESH GUPTA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-274
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 22,2007

KAMLESH GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.N. Chaturvedi, J. - (1.) Crl. M. No. 3067/2007 in Bail Appln. No. 618/2007. Heard. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. Bail Appln. No. 618/2007 & Crl. M.B. No. 414/2007 Notice. Notice accepted on behalf of State by Mr. Soni. Heard. An earlier application for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31st January, 2007. Now a plea justifying this second application being raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that subsequent to dismissal of earlier application as withdrawn, there are subsequent developments inasmuch as the husband has surrendered and sent to judicial custody and the articles of dowry have been recovered on a raid conducted at their house by the police. Besides, it is pointed out that the petitioner No. 1 is suffering from uterus fibroids and is in a precarious condition.
(2.) On behalf of complainant it is argued that after dismissal of earlier application as withdrawn, present application is not maintainable. In support a reference is made to a decision of this Court in Balbir Kumar & Ors. v. State, 132 (2006) DLT 622=2006 (3) JCC 1338 , wherein on an earlier application for pre-arrest bail being dismissed as withdrawn, a second application for the same was held to be not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that against the aforementioned decision, the petitioner had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court but the same was dismissed. He points out that inspite of dismissal of earlier application as withdrawn, the petitioners have neither surrendered nor made themselves available for investigation inspite of issue of NBWs of arrest against them and have been absconding. He further pointed out that husband co-accused in his disclosure statement has told that all the jewellery items belonging to the complainant are lying with the present petitioners which have not till date been recovered.
(3.) The fact that husband co-accused has surrendered and sent to judicial custody can hardly be a ground for the present petitioners to apply again for pre-arrest bail once their earlier application had been dismissed as withdrawn. Conducting of raid by the police to effect recoveries was part of investigation and simply because some of the articles have been recovered during course of raid does not go to the credit of the petitioners in seeking pre-arrest bail. From the copies of medical papers pertaining to petitioner No. 1 which have been placed on record it is gathered and though according to her she has been suffering from Fibroids for the last four five months, this fact was not disclosed in her earlier application made in January, 2007 and she has come up with this plea only now in the second application. In any case even if she is suffering from any such ailment she can be provided with required treatment even while in custody.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.