SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rohit Barad vs State Of Haryana on 21 December, 2017

CRM No.M-22678 of 2017


Criminal Misc. No.M- 22678 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: December 21 , 2017.

Rohit Barad …… PETITIONER (s)
State of Haryana and another …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Jitender Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjay K.Saini, AAG, Haryana.

None for respondent No.2.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?


Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner

in FIR No.232 dated 29.10.2016 under Sections 498A/506/406 IPC, registered at

Police Station Women, Sector 51, District Gurgaon.

It is submitted that marriage between the petitioner and the

complainant/respondent No.2 was performed as per their wishes. It was

admittedly a love marriage performed at a temple on 30.10.2009. It is further

submitted that there is no question of any demand of dowry neither is any such

allegation emerging from the FIR in question. Moreover, the petitioner made

various efforts for resumption of the matrimonial ties, but the complainant has not

1 of 3
24-12-2017 00:46:11 :::
CRM No.M-22678 of 2017

come forward. The complainant is stated to be living separately since 2014. The

complainant/respondent No.2 has not even come forward to join proceedings in

the present case as well, though she was duly served. It is submitted that the

petitioner, who is not involved in any other criminal proceedings, has joined

investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. He undertakes to face the

proceedings and not misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if afforded to him.

Therefore, it is prayed that this petition be allowed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

As per allegations in the FIR, marriage between the petitioner and

the complainant was solemnized on 30.10.2009. A daughter was born out of this

wedlock on 23.12.2011. It is alleged that the petitioner was a drunkard and

addicted to gambling. Various allegations have been raised regarding meting out

of ill-treatment and harassment to the complainant/respondent No.2. It is

mentioned in the FIR that the complainant ultimately started living separately in a

rented accommodation as she did not wish to be a burden on her parents as well.

It is noticed that the complainant was duly impleaded as respondent

No.2 in this petition. It was directed that notice be issued to her on deposit of a

sum of `25,000/- before the Registry of this Court to be paid as litigation

expenses to the complainant. The said amount was deposited. Respondent No.2

has been duly served.

It is informed by learned counsel for the State, on instructions from

ASI Suresh Kumar, that intimation was duly conveyed to respondent No.2

through the concerned police station on 07.10.2017 in respect to the pendency of

the present petition. However, respondent No.2 despite service and intimation,

has chosen not to appear before this Court.

2 of 3
24-12-2017 00:46:12 :::
CRM No.M-22678 of 2017

Learned counsel for the State verifies that the petitioner is not

involved in any other criminal case. 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 before the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without

commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this

petition is allowed.

Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 26.12.2017

at 11.00 a.m. to join investigation at the first instance and thereafter as and when

required by the Investigating Agency. Petitioner shall fully cooperate in the

investigation of this case. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be

released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/ Investigating Officer.

Petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

It is directed that the amount of `25,000/- lying deposited with

Registry of this Court shall be remitted to respondent No.2 qua adequate proof of

identity, in case she makes a necessary application.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be

construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

December 21 , 2017. JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
24-12-2017 00:46:12 :::

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