SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jatin Jain vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 15 March, 2018


Criminal Misc. No. M- 4883 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : March 15, 2018

Jatin Jain …..Petitioner

State of Haryana and another ….Respondents


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.

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salary or money was ever withdrawn for being spent in the matrimonial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to remain intact and was not withdrawn.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.

(Lisa Gill)
March 15, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
18-03-2018 06:17:43 :::

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