- (1.)This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.)In this case at the instance of the wife Smt. Sunita Sharma, a case was registered under Sections 406/498A, I.P.C. at P.S. Anand Parvat against the petitioners. The petitioners approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail and a learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 20/03/1993 directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,000/- each in a nationalised bank in the name of the trial Court within one week and directed that on such deposit, in the event of arrest, petitioners will be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO.
(3.)Mr. Shambhu Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the condition for deposit of Rs. 10,000/- each in the shape of FDR imposed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was contrary to law. He submitted that the proceedings under Section 406/498A, IPC are not meant for the recovery of the jewellery or other articles of dowry. In support of his contentions the learned counsel placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1594 : (1978 Cri LJ 1703); Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1985 SC 1666 : (1985 Cri LJ 1857) and a judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Thakkar v. State of Delhi, 1993 JCC 177.