SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arvind Singh Rajpurohit vs State Of Haryana on 27 February, 2018


Criminal Misc. No. M- 49057 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : February 27, 2018

Arvind Singh Rajpurohit …..Petitioner

State of Haryana ….Respondent


Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant.


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.

(Lisa Gill)
February 27, 2018 Judge

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

4 of 4
04-03-2018 07:33:12 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2021 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