209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No. M- 30950 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : February 21, 2018
Amarjit Singh …..Petitioner
State of Haryana and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 146 dated 24.07.2017 under Sections 323, 342, 406,
498A, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Babain, District Kurukshetra.
As per the allegations in the FIR, marriage between the
petitioner and the complainant took place on 24.10.2015. Allegations of
demand of dowry are raised qua the petitioner and all other family members.
Allegations are raised against the brother-in-law (Devar) as well as his wife,
who admittedly got married after the marriage of the complainant and the
petitioner. Allegations of molestation by the Devar are raised. It is stated
that the complainant was treated like a servant in the matrimonial home. All
her ornaments, it is stated, were snatched. The complainant, it is stated,
ultimately called the police, was rescued and the above said FIR registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated, in the above said FIR, which has in fact been
registered due to temperamental differences between the petitioner and
1 of 3
25-02-2018 00:52:10 :::
the complainant. The petitioner is stated to be working as a Granthi in a
Criminal Misc. No. M- 30950 of 2017 (OM) -2-
Gurudwara. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 hardly resided at the
matrimonial home for a total of three months after marriage. She is the only
child of the parents. The petitioner was, therefore, impressed upon to start
living at her parental home, which was not acceptable to the petitioner. It is
stated that respondent No. 2 initially left for her parental home on the
pretext of her B.A. examination in January, 2016. She returned in May
2016. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 was expecting and again taken back by
her parents on the said pretext. With the intervention of Panchayat, she was
brought back to the matrimonial home on 12.03.2017. An altercation took
place between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 19.03.2017, when he
discovered her in conversation with one Amandeep Singh. The petitioner
came to know that respondent No. 2 was in possession of four different SIM
cards. Respondent No. 2, it is alleged, created a scene on 20.03.2017, called
the police after the petitioner left for his work at the Gurudwara. She
ultimately left the matrimonial home on the said day. It is further submitted
that the petitioner expressed his readiness and willingness to resume
matrimonial ties with the complainant especially keeping in view the future
of the minor child but respondent No. 2 refused to come back. He also filed
a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner, it is
stated, has joined investigation and undertakes not to leave the country
without permission of the learned trial Court. He further undertakes not
abuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if confirmed. It is, thus, prayed
that this petition be allowed.
Respondent No. 2, duly identified by SI Ram Parkash, is
present in Court. She firmly stated that she does not wish to reside with the
2 of 3
25-02-2018 00:52:11 :::
petitioner at the matrimonial home due to acrimonious conditions and
Criminal Misc. No. M- 30950 of 2017 (OM) -3-
unhealthy environment. She is also not ready for any kind of full and final
settlement with the petitioner at this stage though the petitioner has offered
to amicably resolve the entire dispute in whatever manner as respondent No.
2 may like.
Perusal of the file reveals that the matter was placed before the
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, however, mediation could
not take place as on most occasions the complainant did not come present.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Ram
Parkash, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and most of the
articles except some jewellery articles have been recovered. He 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.
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 21, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
25-02-2018 00:52:11 :::