201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No. M- 16518 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : May 01, 2018
Arpinder @ Arpinderpreet Singh …..Petitioner
State of Punjab and another ….Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Sukarchakia, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 10 dated 23.04.2016 under Sections 406/498A IPC
registered at Police Station Kotli Surat Malhi, District Batala.
Contentions on behalf of the petitioner as noted while issuing
notice of motion read as under:-
” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas,
there was temperamental differences between the parties and
no specific allegation of demand of dowry was alleged.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is doing
private job, whereas, the complainant-wife is in government
service. He further submits that on the asking of the
complainant, the petitioner has started to reside separately even
in spite of the fact that he is the only son of his parents. In the
FIR, it has been mentioned by the complainant that the amount
from her account has been drawn for the last more than one
year as the card is also with the petitioner, whereas, it has been
mentioned in the statement recorded on 24.03.2015 that certain
articles in the purse including card were missed. The stand of
1 of 3
06-05-2018 21:00:18 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 16518 of 2016 (OM) -2-
the complainant is contradictory. Learned counsel also submits
that the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute with the
complainant and to abide by all terms and conditions to be
imposed by this Court or by the Investigating Officer.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that all dowry articles
belonging to the complainant as were with the petitioner have been
returned. Demand draft dated 23.07.2016 for a sum of `1,00,000/- was also
handed over in lieu of any of the articles etc., which may still allegedly be
with the petitioner. The said demand draft has been duly encashed by
respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is not averse to
depositing a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in favour of his minor child without
prejudice to his rights. It is further argued that no complaint was ever
lodged by respondent No. 2 regarding any kind of ill-treatment or
harassment till the registration of the FIR. There is no medical evidence to
substantiate the evidence of physical abuse. The petitioner, it is submitted,
has co-operated in the investigation and he undertakes not to abuse the
concession of anticipatory bail, if confirmed. It is, thus, prayed that this
petition be allowed.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition
while submitting that there are specific allegations against the petitioner.
Photocopy of the medico legal report of the complainant dated 18.11.2015
has been furnished in Court today to submit that she was indeed subjected to
physical abuse. The said medico legal report reflects abrasion on the left
shoulder and complaint of pain on the back of the chest though no external
injuries were visible. It is, however, not denied that no such incident of
November, 2015 finds mention in the FIR. The said medico legal report is
not available on the police file.
2 of 3
06-05-2018 21:00:19 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 16518 of 2016 (OM) -3-
It is noticed that strenuous efforts were made for an amicable
settlement between the parties, however, the same did not fructify as the
petitioner ultimately expressed deep reservations regarding resumption of
cohabitation due to intervening events whereas respondent No. 2 is not
ready for any kind of settlement except resumption of matrimonial ties.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI
Joginder Singh, verifies that the petitioner has handed over the articles
belonging to the complainant. Demand draft for a sum of `1,00,000/- was
also submitted by the petitioner and the same was duly handed over to
respondent No. 2. It is verified that the petitioner has joined investigation
and 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 subject to the petitioner depositing a
sum of `2,00,000/- in favour of the minor child by way of FDR before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur without prejudice his rights within six
weeks. The said FDR, however, be not encashed till the child attains
Consequently, order dated 13.05.2016 is made absolute.
May 01, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
06-05-2018 21:00:19 :::