203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4883 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : March 15, 2018
Jatin Jain …..Petitioner
State of Haryana and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.
Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate and
Ms. Prabha Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 425 dated 17.09.2016 under Sections 498A, 406, 506
IPC registered at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad.
It is submitted that the present FIR has been lodged due to
temperamental differences between the petitioner and the complainant.
Marriage between the petitioner and the complainant, it is contended, was in
fact a love marriage with the consent of both the families. A simple
marriage ceremony was performed. The complainant was afforded all love
and affection in the matrimonial home. Allegations regarding ill-treatment,
harassment and demand of dowry mentioned in the FIR are stated to be
incorrect. It is further submitted that allegation in the FIR attracting the
rigours of Section 377 IPC was not found to be made out and the petitioner
is not being proceeded against for the said offence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that marriage
between the petitioner and the complainant was solemnised on 25.01.2015.
The complainant left the matrimonial home of her own accord on
1 of 4
18-03-2018 06:17:42 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4883 of 2017 (OM) -2-
04.07.2015. When she left the matrimonial home on 04.07.2015, she took
all her articles alongwith. Reference is made to the photographs, Annexure
P-12 to contend that the complainant left the matrimonial home alongwith
her family members with her luggage. It is further contended that statements
of the bank accounts of the complainant as well as of the joint account of the
complainant and the petitioner’s mother would reveal that no part of her
salary or money was ever withdrawn for being spent in the matrimonial
home. In the joint account as above, it is the petitioner’s mother, who
contributed about `20,000/-. Salary of the complainant, it is submitted, used
to remain intact and was not withdrawn. In regard to the allegations of
physical abuse levelled in the FIR, it is submitted that there is no medical
evidence on record to substantiate the same. Moreover, a petition under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ – for short) was filed
by the petitioner in May, 2016 (Annexure P-3). It is thereafter that the
present FIR has been registered on 17.09.2016. It is, thus, a counterblast to
the divorce petition filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner, it is submitted, has joined investigation. The
petitioner, who is present in Court states that in order to show his bona
fides, he undertakes to deposit a sum of `7.5 lakhs before the learned trial
Court though without any prejudice to his rights. The said amount, it is
submitted, shall be deposited within two weeks. He undertakes to face the
proceedings and not abuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if confirmed.
Learned counsel for the complainant and the State have
opposed this application. Learned counsel for the complainant argues that
there are specific allegations of ill-treatment, harassment and demand of
2 of 4
18-03-2018 06:17:43 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4883 of 2017 (OM) -3-
dowry, which have been raised against the petitioner. It is further submitted
that the FIR was not lodged at an earlier stage as the complainant wished to
save the matrimonial home. It is only when intentions of the petitioner
became apparent after filing of the divorce petition that the complainant was
constrained to lodge the present FIR.
It is noticed that this matter was placed before the Mediation
and Conciliation Centre of this Court but mediation was not successful.
Effort was made to enable the parties to resolve the dispute, however, the
petitioner and respondent No. 2 could not amicably resolve the matter.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI
Amarjit, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation though it is
submitted that certain recoveries are to be effected.
This Court in Prit Pal Singh versus State of Punjab and
another 2014 (5) RCR (Criminal) 771 observed that non recovery of
certain articles by itself cannot be a ground for not affording the concession
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
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. Consequently, order dated 15.02.2017
is made absolute subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of `7.5 lakhs
before the learned trial Court within two weeks from today. Needless to say
the deposit of this amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the
3 of 4
18-03-2018 06:17:43 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4883 of 2017 (OM) -4-
It is reiterated that there is no expression of opinion on the
merits of the case. The observations in this order are confined for the
decision of this petition only.
March 15, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
18-03-2018 06:17:43 :::