IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-33817-2019 (OM)
Date of Decision:- 3.9.2019
Gaurav Juneja … Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab … Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Manish Prabhaker, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. The petitioner Gaurav Juneja has approached this Court seeking grant of
anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.23 dated
2.7.2019 under Sections 498A, Section323 IPC at Police Station Women, District
Amritsar.
2. The FIR was registered at the instance of Sonam wherein it has been alleged
that her marriage was solemnised with Gaurav Juneja (petitioner) on
23.11.2016 wherein her parents had handed over her ‘istridhan’ to her
husband Gaurav Juneja, brother-in-law Saurav Juneja, her husband’s Bua
(aunts) Nimmo and Usha, as per their capacity. They had also given gifts
and shagun including gold ornaments to various members of her husband’s
family. It is alleged that her husband and other members of his family were
however not pleased with the dowry and used to harass her in order to press
1 of 3
02-10-2019 14:40:31 :::
2 CRM-M-33817-2019 (OM)
upon demands of more dowry. It is further alleged that the accused even
misappropriated her articles of ‘ishtridhan’ and gold ornaments. It is further
alleged therein that on 22.02.2019 when she was present in her room, her
husband came inside in an inebriated state and started torturing her and
raising demands and upon her resistance, he gave beatings to her. Upon
hearing her cries, her brother-in-law came inside in the room and who also
gave beatings to her.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been
implicated in the present case simply on account of matrimonial
compatibility and that the allegations levelled in the complaint as regards the
alleged demand of dowry and giving beatings are all cooked up allegations.
4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that the
petitioner is the main accused, being the husband of the complainant and
that the allegations levelled in the FIR stands corroborated from the medical
evidence inasmuch as 6 injuries were found on the person of the
complainant when she was medically examined on 21.2.2019.
5. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. Although
the matter, apparently, is a case which has arisen out of matrimonial discord
but the fact that the complainant was found to have sustained 6 injuries
including a lacerated wound on her upper lip apart from other injuries on
vital parts of her body including nasal bone, neck and ear, the allegations
cannot be said to be false. In these circumstances, this Court does not find it
to be a case justifying grant of anticipatory bail.
2 of 3
02-10-2019 14:40:31 :::
3 CRM-M-33817-2019 (OM)
6. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
3.9.2019 (Gurvinder Singh Gill)
kamal Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
3 of 3
02-10-2019 14:40:31 :::