SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Satish Kumar Vohra vs State Of Punjab on 29 January, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M-24567 of 2019
Date of Decision: 29.01.2020

Satish Kumar Vohra
…Petitioner (s)
Versus
State of Punjab
…Respondent(s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA

Present:- Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Hittan Nehra, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, Advocate for
Mr. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.
*****

HARI PAL VERMA, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner

in case FIR No.26 dated 25.04.2019 under Section 498-A IPC registered at

Police Station Women Cell, Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, District

Jalandhar.

The aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of the

complainant Shweta, whose marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in

the year 2006. As per the FIR, the in-laws of the complainant started

harassing and demanding more dowry after one year of the marriage. Her

1 of 3
30-01-2020 22:06:04 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-24567 of 2019 -2-

husband, who was in the habit of taking liquor, usually remained under the

influence of liquor and due to this reason, the sister-in-law (Nanad) and

brother-in-law (Nandoi) of the complainant used to take the benefit of his

drunkened condition. For this reason, the complainant used to remain in

tension. It has been alleged that the complainant had no space to reside in

her matrimonial home and she is not being given share in the house.

On 28.05.2019, while staying the arrest of the petitioner

following order was passed by this Court:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
marriage between the petitioner and complainant was
solemnised in the year 2006 and out of this wedlock, a son is
born to them. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the
complainant is interested to have share in the property as the
petitioner is in the habit of taking drink.

Notice of motion for 14.08.2019.

Till next date of hearing, arrest of the petitioner shall
remain stayed.”

Thereafter, on 14.10.2019, interim bail was granted to the

petitioner and he was directed to join investigation.

Learned State counsel has argued that recovery of 20 tola gold

and other articles, which include clothes, furniture, TV, AC, Activa, is yet

to be effected from the petitioner.

At this stage, Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, Advocate for Mr. Hoshiar

Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and

filed his power of attorney in Court, which is taken on record. He has

argued that the petitioner has harassed the complainant, compelling her to

bring more dowry.

2 of 3
30-01-2020 22:06:04 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-24567 of 2019 -3-

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year

2006. The present FIR has been lodged under Section 498A IPC only and

no offence under Section 406 IPC has been found mentioned.

As regard the argument of learned State counsel that recovery

of dowry articles is yet to be effected from the petitioner, reference may be

made to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma and

others Versus State of U.P. and another 2017(3) RCR (Criminal) 836,

wherein it has been held that recovery of disputed dowry items may not by

itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of the

wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Similar view has also been

taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Social Action Forum for Manav

Adhikar and another Versus Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice

and others 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 226.

Considering the fact that the petitioner has joined

investigation, the present petition is allowed and the interim order dated

14.10.2019 is made absolute.

However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and

when directed by the investigating agency and shall abide by the terms and

conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

January 29, 2020 ( HARI PAL VERMA )
AK JUDGE

Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No

3 of 3
30-01-2020 22:06:04 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 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