- (1.)The Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, Delhi denied to the Petitioner anticipatory bail, in view of the serious allegations made by Mrs. Anisha Sharma, wife (Respondent - complainant) under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved, the Petitioner (Mayank Pathak) approached the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court has also rejected the Petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail, in view of the serious allegations of illegal demands of dowry made by the Petitioner on the complainant and cruel treatment. The High Court has observed that there are allegations of the complainant that she suffered bleeding due to beating and could not save her pregnancy. The High Court has also referred to the medical record of 6th February, 2013 on which the complainant visited Dr. Krishna Sangwan at Rohtak along with the Petitioner due to bleeding and threatened abortion, which ultimately resulted in miscarriage. It is thus found that there is also objective material for denial of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.
(2.)As noted earlier, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the Mrs. Anisha Sharma, complainant/Respondent No. 2 with the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Maurya Enclave, New Delhi making serious allegations of illegal demands of dowry, beating etc., as mentioned above. Particular instances are set out in the Order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, Delhi, dated 21.12.2013 as also the Order of the Delhi High Court dated 18.02.2014 and we do not consider it necessary to reproduce the same.
(3.)Suffice it to say that the courts below have found the allegations serious enough to deny grant of anticipatory bail. We are entirely in agreement with the observations and prima facie conclusions of the courts below.