Bailorder7102015 (PDF)

i4hr-

^t
.t'trie I/i.
745/.15, PS

nnder .Secrion

BOT /

Z\B/

9B-A/

o6lsr

$iuri Vijay fugnrwal *loragr,vit.h ffis.
--iripti
Ivl+"
liantrdrla, td.'*c,unsels for,
Cr:mpJainant Ms. tr,ipii+a &{itr:a in trer
[.Ct./Insp. Dheera.i Iiumar in peruon.

1

'Ihe presenr bail applicinrion is lisiecl
fo

2.

lhis is rhe first applicario::r

ppli+a

er

nrcved

.P.C. by applicanr Somnath Bhani for gralrr

of

Sec

lar bail

I

{pplieant is the hrlqbaeL.cl of cornpii,l,i.rral
The FiR of the prcs.en[ case vuas icdgeqi

I;ipilta Mima for

+ob/

417 /

th,e, oft'.bnr,es

42A/506/5 i 1 i :\+

Ep

u:rder S*ii:tiojit

{:.

As per the conrents of FIR coinpla
r"-

Page rut, 11,Ig

ON

.lie conr

?,.\
JtJ

/313/2

zthB\o'ti
FIP,Na 745/15,

PS

rka Lt

ortlt

gave a written complaint to rhe Depury commissioner o Police,
District sourh-wesr, New Delhi on L l_.06.zors for regisrrati
of FIR
against the applicanr somnarh Bharri sraring rherein rhat
and
her children were being subjected ro severe physical, men
& oral
harassment and rornrre from her husband somnarh Bharti nd iris
supporters. In her complaint, complainanr Lipika Mirra rjra
that
she carne

in contact with rhe applicanr somnath 3harri rh

cttqh

e

rnatrimonial website shadi.corn wherein she had crearerl h
and applicant somnath Bharri had shovm his interesr. Appl

nt had

rold rhe complainanr rhar he was rhe Managing parrn

of

international Law Firrn and has many staff working under

gave

an

impression

profile

im

that he lvas financiallv weli

an

a-rrd

anC

.rnth
professionally successful. They met several times benrr
4W
Marcb" 2O1,O to 126 Decernber, 20L0 and all the
during
tllese meedngs used ro be borne by the cornplainanr. In ugust

2010, both decided ro ger engage on 10.10"2010 and
08.12.2010 and accordingly cornplainanr invired ali her

fnr
LL

J

nff
Vlr

tn milr;'

members, relatives and friends but when applicanr somnatl Bharri
carne to know about invitation, he put a condition that com

ainarit

would need ro bear the endre cost of receprion/marriage

vVtr.eii

complaina.nt showed her incapaciry, applicanr bluntly tol,C

thar

under such circumsmnces he would not be able to rnarry irer.

On 10.10.2010, complainanr and applicanr gor en

6.
e

e

house of complainanr and

Court and thereafter,

on OB.1,Z.2AI0, thev

gor

in a rernple and the encire

i.l
in
frf

Page no,2/1.9

AL'ltwMx'

StEfe 1/s;

.

FIRNo. 745,rJ5, PS

engagement funedon and marriage was borfle by the com

On 12.12.201,0, complainant hosted a recepriotr and
invired all his relarirres, friends and acqnainrernces and r
cost towards the recepdon was borne by the cornplainanr.

.J

I

7'

During honeyrnoon, appricant rnisbehaved

seve

wirh the complainanr ard he arso confessed ro her rhat his
condition was nor well, & he was
lurdened wirh various d

was working as a partner'in his own firm wirh akncsr no

prior to that he was rnmning an IT cornpany/Bpo. The i
the applicanr was fraudulent nghr from rhe begianing, in vi,
fhct that he had csncealed rnareriai facrs from the compiai
had rnisrepresented hirnself

L

till the cornpletion of m4rriage.

After rerurning ftom honeymoon, pn i the
applicant, complainant handed over ali her jewellery ar

,l
i
I
I

rl

-l
,I

.l

I

gifu received during endre functions of marriage rd her m
law and never demanded back because by rhat tirne ishe had
coneeived and rn'as in need of support from the fa4ily of a
being a ne$rcomer. Despite her being pregnanr & opi well (

& H5ryerrension), cornplainant was subjected to jreguiar
nnental & physical abuse by her morher-in-law anfl rhe
She was rnade

to bear the enrire house-hold expEnses. A

evefl asked the cornplainanr to buy a house as hq did nor li
Fage

no,3/19

FtrRNa 745/15,P5

in a rented accommodacion.

On 23.O2.2OII,

9.

compiainanr was beaten up

applicant on the insrigation of his morher and for rhe sak
being of her unborn child, complainant lefr the raatqirnonial

dh"

"ighr

ar LL:00 p.m. and went to her residence in

informed the applicant rhat no sffess should be gi
cornplainanr as she had high risk to deliver still born child.
and his rnorher ried rheir level best during rhe enrire t
pr€gnancy to harrn her and rhe rmborn child.

1.0

On 27.04.2011, complainanr gave bifrh rto a pr
baby grrl by C-secrion delivery. Frorn OT.AS.ZO\J., gpplitan
visicing the complainant ar her Dwarka residencp arid used

nigk with rhe complainanr on weekend.s. No finanpial

con

was made by rhe applicant from 07.05.2011 toward.s

child- In rhe rnorning of 17ft July, cornplainanr askpd the
-i
to arrange an infunt cot but applicanr became frfrious
a

filthiest language and finding rhar applicant vlioutrd
responsibility of the child and would e:cpecr her iio rake
everyday needs, she decided

ro end her reiarionship

applicam and cornmunicated with him rhrough email. ln

the said e-rnail, applicant

approached

rhe

cqrnplaina

apologized for all his deeds and prornised rhar ne wui not re
I

PaSe

\n,4/19

statel/i., t
FIRNo,:745/15, PS

such acdon

in funrre ard extended fatherly affection

ro

Applicanr also invited rhe cornplainanr ro shift in rhe ma

hotse and accordingly cornplainant senr her driver and rirai
rnarrinonial house to arrange portion Iivable as per rhe
child. on rhe next day when she visired rhe matrimpnial
found her rnother-in-law and brorher-in-law abusinrg the
help and ttrey even refirsed ro open rhe door fdr her. corn

qade a call at LOo nrunber and rescued her domesdc h
three horus wirh the t*tp of police. Applicant
I

cEmplainanr wirh physieal violence in fronr of rhe public
p-ssonnel accurnulated ttrere.

11,

On 17,L0.2}Il, cornplainant filed a compfaint be
CftIg Celi, Secror-9, Dwarfta but applicanr dicli nor
invesrigadon despite various suilmrons. In rhe momhr of N
I

:L^--

- tl

r

r

r[ey were called for mediarion where applicanri
---^--

i

ex

inability to provide financial supporr to her and the phild.

alb

sougbt 5 rnonths drne from the complainanr to rnake
vrable and complainant told her to take 12 rnonrtls irrst
I

thfreafter, shifted alongwirh complainanr and her ida
P.{Ige

a

\
:

lto,5/19

FIR

Na 745/15,

pS

rented accournodation in Dwarka bur failed to make rhe
of securiry and rent rowards rhe flar. on i9.03.2013, since
was due ro be paid, complainanr requested rhe appljicanr ro
same but applicanr abused her verbally on healing her

ilr€ney. A:r argument followed and applicant beqarne
abusive ro the complainanr. He slapped rhe complainant

m€nt
rent

y rhe
for
ically
al

ciges and even rried to strangulate

her. Afrer that he
the
complainanr knowing very well rhar she was in rhe 7ft
nth of
pregnancy. Then he (applicanr) rnade his Dog (a big La
dor)
arrack rhe cornplainant. while the dog attack he4 appl
was
sranding & watching her getring mourded by rhe Dgg. com ainant
was binen by the dog at a rnultiple piaces fn hrgr srorna h and
pririate parrs. Applicanr crossecl all the barriers of bruraliw rn
en he
sarr. condirion of complainant afrer dog bires and clid rr
even
ged

y and
t baby

family
her
days old son to hospital and she rnras advised ro ger hpr son
sinrce he was diagnosed .iaundica

B

itted

wirh high bilirub-n counr f 2s,s

and she called the applicanr frqm rhe hospital bur afrer co

to

the hospital, he ran away from rhere like a criminal rrying ro

eas

the doctors cou-ld recognize hirr for not pavine
vi theirr earlier

ues ln

i

Itu&

nr;.l

6/19

;

FIRNo, 715,/15,

PS

srandirg for Delhi Assembly polls for Aam F,adrnii parqr
sripported him wfth the vienr that if he wins rhe elqcdon,
amend himself and mighr srop his brutaliry against hEr.

15.

In

January zOL+, complainanr realized i ttrat
conceived rhird tirne ftom her rnarriage but this time

a

hinself advised her m rerrninate the pregnancy. Qn

24.

cgmplainanr requesred the applieant ro acconpany

ro

i

social functions and was ftnng kires ar some

event.
'I

16.

Ht.er

i

i

On loft
10ft Augu
Augusr
x ZOI+,
ZOir4, applicant physicaltiy
physicalli and
i

t-

i

page

m, 7/J9

r

Statevs.

;

FnNo, i4s/1s,pS

77.

On the mghr interrening to ZT/2g.0S.20tS,;appiica

abused rhe cornplainant verbaily and physicaily
at her
Dwarka in front of rheir childreu. He called her prosrirure
r
and beaten her brack and blue. Appricanr ar.bo
threate
complainant rhat he will rake away childrsr frorn
her and
that she has no livelihood. File also threatend
her that he wi
her brorhe/s and morhet's rife miserable and
also threatened
dire consequences too as she stays aione.

18'

After registrarion of rhe FIR, comprainanf adrded.
a
ttrfr in rhe night interning to 2T/28.05.2015, appric4nr

gave

beatings to her and thereafter he srir her reft
hand wlrist by
k"{" and uied ro kill her in ftont of rheir children.

19-

By way of present application,

it has

been qonte

as [o where did the dog bite to the ccrmplainan(
arrd no
record lns been brought on record, which shows

rhiit

tne

further submimed that there is a rong deray in regisrradpn
of
making of complaint as well which rnakes rhe
iryhole
Ptr*e nn. A.19

r

i,

,i,;i

-aa,

.:

--'l

A-t

- \

FIF.No, V45/15, PS
i

invesdgating officer on 28.09.20r.5 at 10:00 a.m.
which is
from rhe appJication dared zg.ag.zarS filed by rhe, I.o.

b

kl' lt{-t![' Dwark4 however, sarae has been rnarafiderv s
I.O. as L:OO a.m. in the arrest mertro. It is furrlre{
s
since the alleged offences, other rhan section 302/31s
punishable wirh imprisonment

for a period

ress rhlan se

the applicaru is enrirled for bail in view of rhe grpidqlines
I
in -Ainesh K*qrnr vs- stsre of Eihar
&Anr. lzot'g F scc 2
;

In the light of Bhcdre.s h Bipilrbt nA Jn"{tu yr.
c1$arot & Anr., CrL ApBee!. JVo. LLS4.LI3S
pf ZOIS
i

sqbrritred rhat rhere is no ch urce of rhe applicarrt
lUsconai
l-^
:1
r
F
-l---------.1
he is always
arrailable
for inrerrogarion by the invesprgadng
I

he has pemanenr place.of abcde in Delhi and haye deep
the sociery.
as.

i

I

I

I
II

1

Ir is fi'rher srrbmined rhar compraint j nt*a

r

:

complainant is time barred and offences under
$ec{ion 498
IPC of IPc are not conrinuing offences and r[t" jsupplen
I

statef,nent cannor be considered as subsequently ad{ed all
ale not UrrsnrrordrV.
I

20'

i

Ld. Counsel for the applicant has argued on
{he Hnes

application and has furrher argued rhat recorde{ conve
PaSe

no,9/19