SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Karan Chawla vs State Of Haryana on 28 February, 2019

CRM-M-48354-2017 (OM)


CRM-M-48354-2017 (OM)
Date of decision: 28.2.2019

Karan Chawla
… Petitioner(s)


State of Haryana and another


Present: Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate.
for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Garg, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.


Through the instant petition, the husband is seeking

anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0147 dated 10.10.2017 registered at the

instance of his wife (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506, 376 of Indian

Penal Code, at Police Station Women, District Ambala.

The facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the

petitioner as well as complainant-wife are advocates. They have tied the

nuptial knot on 14.12.2015. It has been submitted by the complainant that

on the pre-nuptial ceremonies, a sum of ` 20 lacs in cash was given to the

petitioner and his family members, out of which, a sum of ` 16 lacs were

spent for purchasing the car and ` 4 lacs were spent for renovation and

furnishing of a flat at Ghaziabad. Besides this, valuable articles and

1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2019 23:32:41 :::
CRM-M-48354-2017 (OM)

jewellery were also given, the details thereof has been give in the FIR.

The complainant had given the woeful narrations of the

atrocities suffered by her from the hands of the petitioner, his family

members and especially from her father-in-law.

She has, inter alia, alleged that on one occasion her father-in-

law had sexually abused her. Apart from it, the petitioner-husband and his

family members were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage,

rather were demanding more and for this purpose, they have been

maltreating and beating her. The details of the acts and conduct of the

petitioner has been given in the FIR.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that articles of

dowry have already been recovered, those are mentioned in recovery memo

dated 21.12.2017 and also have been returned to the complainant; that

allegations levelled in the FIR are baseless and concocted; that the

petitioner has joined the investigation and he is entitled to the concession of

anticipatory bail. It has also been argued that in fact the allegations of rape

were found to be false and those has already been withdrawn against the

father of the petitioner. In support of his contentions, reliance has been

placed on the judgments of this Court in Anil Rajput and others v. State

of Haryana; 2010 (6) RCR (Criminal) 1126 and order dated 16.10.2018

passed in CRM-M-2469-2017.

On the other hand, on behalf of the complainant, it has been

vehemently contended that the petitioner in fact has concealed the material

facts of the case from this Court; that he has placed on record a distorted

2 of 6
10-03-2019 23:32:42 :::
CRM-M-48354-2017 (OM)

copy of the FIR wherein the material facts has not been stated; that the

offence under Section 376 IPC is not part of the instant bail application

whereas he himself filed an application before the court of sessions for grant

of anticipatory bail for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 406, 498-

A, 506, 376 of Indian Penal Code but he deliberately and in order to obtain,

interim anticipatory bail, did not mention offence under Section 376 IPC in

his petition; that serious allegations have been levelled with regard to

cruelty and maltreatment against the petitioner. In support of his contention,

reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Bal Krishan

Fauzdar v. State of Haryana; 2018 (1) RCR (Criminal) 789.

This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival


First of all, coming to the concealment of facts from this Court.

It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the father of the

petitioner committed rape upon the complainant and when she complained

to the petitioner, he did not take any heed, rather, treated her with cruelty.

Therefore, the investigating agency also added the offence under Section

376 IPC in the FIR.

Undisputedly, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of

anticipatory bail before the court of Sessions to obtain anticipatory bail for

offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506, 376 IPC. Said

application was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-11).

Thus, the petitioner was well aware that offence under Section 376 IPC has

also been inserted in the FIR but the same has been concealed at the time of

filing this petition. Later on, amended petition has been filed and the said

offence added therein.

3 of 6
10-03-2019 23:32:42 :::
CRM-M-48354-2017 (OM)

Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that a complete

copy of the FIR was not available with the petitioner, yet the petitioner was

well aware of the fact that offence under Section 376 IPC has been added.

At the time of filing this petition, offence under Section 376 IPC was part of

the FIR. However, on 20.12.2017, i.e., after filing of this petition, the same

was deleted by the investigating agency. To the mind of this Court, the

petitioner was well aware that offence under Section 376 IPC was also part

of the record and he did not intentionally mention the same in the petition.

Thus, the petitioner is guilty of concealment of facts from the Court.

So far as the distorted copy of the FIR is concerned, learned

counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact, he had downloaded a copy

of the FIR from the website of Panchkula Police and the same has been

placed on the file. To clarify this, this Court has called Additional Director

General of Police who submitted that due to mistake of fact, the full

contents of the FIR could not be uploaded on the website. He has placed on

record complete copy of the FIR.

Serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner

and his family members for demand of dowry and treating the complainant

with cruelty. Although some of the articles have been recovered during the

investigation, yet the petitioner and his family members failed to account for

the remaining articles, including jewellery, which were given to her at the

time of the marriage-before and after its solemnization. Therefore, the

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

The remedy of anticipatory bail is extraordinary and should be

used in exceptional cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharam

Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others 2011 AIR (SC)

4 of 6
10-03-2019 23:32:42 :::
CRM-M-48354-2017 (OM)

312 pleased to issue the following parameters:-

“122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration
while dealing with the anticipatory bail :

i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused

must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the

accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court

in respect of any cognizable offence;

iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

iv. The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or the other


v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring

or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large

magnitude affecting a very large number of people.

vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the

accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact

role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated

with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court

should consider with even greater care and caution because over

implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance

has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be

caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be

prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the


ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the

witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the

element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of

5 of 6
10-03-2019 23:32:42 :::
CRM-M-48354-2017 (OM)

grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the

genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused

is entitled to an order of bail.”

However, the facts in Anil Rajput and others (supra) and in

CRM-M-2469-2017 are distinguishable on facts.

After going through the overall scenario, no case is made out

for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present

petition stands dismissed.

February 28, 2019 JUDGE
Paritosh Kumar

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

6 of 6
10-03-2019 23:32:42 :::

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