Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(through video conferencing)
CRM-M-7265-2021
Decided on : 29.07.2021
Abhineet Sharma …… Petitioner
Versus
State of UT, Chandigarh …… Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. J.S.Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. PP, UT, Chandigarh.
Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.,
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.78 dated
20.11.2020 under Sections 498A, 506 IPC 1860 (Section 506 IPC be read as
Section 406 IPC vide order dated 22.02.2021) registered at Police Station
Women District Chandigarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to order
dated 05.04.2021, passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the
investigation. This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the State as well.
Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Sanjiv Kumar
states that though the petitioner has joined the investigation, however,
recovery of dowry articles as detailed in the FIR in question has not yet
been effected.
Heard.
1 of 2
31-07-2021 03:37:42 :::
CRM-M-7265-2021 -2-
Learned counsel for the petitioner has on the other hand refuted
the instructions received by the Standing Court that recovery of dowry
articles including gold jewellery has not been effected.
While drawing the attention of this Court to the allegations
levelled in the FIR (Annexure P-1), learned counsel has submitted that since
it was a love-cum-arranged marriage and solemnized at a booth next to the
bus stand, exaggerated allegations had been levelled by the complainant qua
the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. He submits that all the
dowry articles including gold jewellery stand returned and the petitioner
was not in possession of any articles.
Heard.
Demand and entrustment of dowry articles as alleged are
disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court at this
stage and shall be considered when the parties adduce their respective
evidence during trial.
In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order
dated 05.04.2021, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
29.07.2021 JUDGE
sonia
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
31-07-2021 03:37:42 :::
