2014 INSC 0611
                              SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                         Mayank Pathak

                                                Vs.

                             The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

            (Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Sharad Arvind Bobde JJ.)

                                           21.07.2014

                                         JUDGMENT

SHARAD ARVIND BOBDE, J.

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.

4. In this case, we would like to make a note of the fact that attempts made to
reconcile the parties for an amicable settlement of the dispute have met with
failure, mainly, due to the denial and refusal of the Petitioner and his family to
return the complainant' s streedhan, which according to the complainant is valued
more than ` 50 lakhs. According to the Petitioner, he has no such articles of the
complainant and that the complainant has taken back not only her articles but also
those from the Petitioner's family. The Petitioner has not agreed to this even
though the complainant has not asserted any demand of alimony in case of mutual
divorce but only asked for return of her articles. The Respondent even complained
that the Petitioner's father threatened herself and her father with consequences of
filing the case. For reasons best known to the Petitioner, he has ultimately stuck to
his stand and the attempts for amicable settlement have been unsuccessful.

5. This Court finds it unfortunate that the parties cannot settle such a matter and
the Petitioner is willing to fight out the matter in court. We are conscious that the
statements made in the court in the attempt for conciliation are not evidence before
the court and will not be used as such. In any case, we are of the view that the
allegations of cruelty and torture at the hands of the Petitioner and the alleged
desertion of the complainant as a result of beating, completely disentitle the
Petitioner to any consideration for anticipatory bail. In view of the above, we find
no merits in this special leave petition and the same is dismissed. The orders of the
High Court and Additional Sessions Judge are affirmed.