SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gaurav Juneja vs State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2019


CRM-M-33817-2019 (OM)
Date of Decision:- 3.9.2019

Gaurav Juneja … Petitioner


State of Punjab … Respondent


Present:- Mr. Manish Prabhaker, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the complainant.



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


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 :::

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