SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abhineet Sharma vs State Of Ut Chandigarh on 29 July, 2021

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.

(through video conferencing)

Decided on : 29.07.2021

Abhineet Sharma …… Petitioner


State of UT, Chandigarh …… Respondent


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.


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.


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

Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

29.07.2021 JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
31-07-2021 03:37:42 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2023 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation