209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No. M- 49057 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : February 27, 2018
Arvind Singh Rajpurohit …..Petitioner
State of Haryana ….Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 519 dated 23.10.2017 under Sections 498A, 406,
313, 376, 506, 377, 342, 511 IPC registered at NIT Faridabad, District
The petitioner as well as the complainant, duly identified by
their counsel, are present in Court. As per the allegations in the FIR,
marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was solemnised
on 30.01.2015. The petitioner left for France in relation to his work on
15.02.2015. The complainant joined him at France on 25.03.2015. Both
of them came back to India on 19.06.2015. A child was born out of this
wedlock on 13.12.2015. Allegations of ill-treatment, harassment and
dowry have been raised against the present petitioner, his mother and
sister. Allegations attracting the rigours of Section 377 IPC have also
1 of 4
04-03-2018 07:33:10 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 49057 of 2017 (OM) -2-
been levelled against the petitioner. It is stated that the complainant was
not rehabilitated in the matrimonial home as the petitioner’s demand for
more dowry was not met with. On the basis of the said allegations, the
above said FIR was registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that
the petitioner is a Scientist, employed with Physical Research
Laboratory, Government of India. He is presently stationed at
Ahemdabad. Allegations in the FIR, it is submitted, are absolutely
incorrect and false. The complainant had in fact wanted a separate
residence where the petitioner’s mother was not residing. However, the
petitioner could not leave his mother alongwith his father as he is a
chronic alcoholic. The complainant thereafter left the matrimonial
house on her own. The petitioner having no option filed a petition
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (‘the Act’ – for short) at
Rajasthan on 03.07.2017. Thereafter, the complainant filed a petition
under Section 9 of the Act on 31.08.2017. Subsequent thereto, the
present FIR was registered on 23.10.2017. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the complainant is in fact living in the house
belonging to the petitioner’s mother at Mount Abu. It is submitted that
the petitioner undertakes to face the proceedings and shall not abuse the
concession of anticipatory bail, if afforded to him. It is, thus, prayed
that this petition be allowed.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this
application while submitting that specific allegations of ill-treatment,
2 of 4
04-03-2018 07:33:12 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 49057 of 2017 (OM) -3-
harassment and allegations attracting the offence punishable under
Section 377 IPC have been specifically levelled against the petitioner.
Medical evidence on record would reflect the same. It is submitted that
though the complainant was living at Mount Abu till 02.08.2017, she is
now residing with her parents at Faridabad. It is not denied that petition
under Section 13 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner on
03.07.2017 and petition under Section 9 of the Act was filed by the
complainant on 31.08.2017. Learned counsel submits that recovery of
the dowry articles is yet to be effected. It is, thus, prayed that this
petition be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
It is to be noticed that mediation between the parties has
failed. The complainant seeks nothing but resumption of matrimonial
ties whereas the petitioner submits that the same may not be possible
though he is ready and willing for a full and final settlement, in case,
respondent No. 2 is ready to part ways. However, the same is not
acceptable to the complainant.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI
Mohd. Aslam, verifies that the petitioner is not involved in any other
criminal case. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the
petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the
witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.
This Court in Prit Pal Singh versus State of Punjab and
another 2014 (5) RCR (Criminal) 771 observed that non recovery of
3 of 4
04-03-2018 07:33:12 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 49057 of 2017 (OM) -4-
certain articles by itself cannot be a ground for not affording the
concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted above
but without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is
considered just and expedient to allow this petition. In the event of his
arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of
Investigating Officer/ Arresting officer. He shall appear before the
Investigating agency as and when required. Petitioner shall comply
with the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
February 27, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
04-03-2018 07:33:12 :::