CRM-M-40551-2016(OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40551-2016(OM)
Date of decision:-6.7.2018
Virender Singh Dabas
…Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.Sanjay Rathi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.S.S. Mor, Advocate
for the respondent No.2.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail has
been filed by the petitioner – Virender Singh Dabas, an accused in FIR
No.443 dated 2.9.2016, under Sections 323, 377, 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC,
registered with Police Station City, Bahadurgarh.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the FIR in this
case was got recorded by the complainant – Latika against her husband
Virender Singh Dabas and his other relatives levelling allegations of
harassment, torture, cruelty, criminal intimidation perpetrated upon her on
account of demand of dowry, criminal breach of trust with respect to
dowry articles entrusted to the accused, besides her husband Virender
Singh Dabas indulging in unnatural intercourse with her.
1 of 4
10-07-2018 02:35:10 :::
CRM-M-40551-2016(OM) -2-
Apprehending his arrest in this case, the petitioner had
approached the Court of Sessions seeking grant of pre-arrest bail by filing
an application, however, his such application was declined by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide order dated 24.10.2016. As such,
the petitioner has approached this Court asking for similar relief.
Notice of the petition was given to respondent – State, which
put in appearance through counsel. The complainant has also appeared
through counsel.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the records.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the FIR
is based upon wrong allegations and the same is counter-blast to the
petition for custody of minor son of the parties namely Satvik filed by the
present petitioner, which is pending in the Family Court, Delhi. He has
further contended that this matrimonial dispute between the parties had
been referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre at New Delhi, where
both the spouses had agreed to reside together in a peaceful manner; that
as a matter of fact the petitioner has never misbehaved with the
complainant and has not given any cause for complaint; that the
complainant has levelled wrong and false allegations against the petitioner
and his family with the sole purpose to extract money from the petitioner;
that the petitioner had even filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights; that the complainant
instead of joining the society of her husband – the present petitioner, has
lodged a wrong FIR against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
2 of 4
10-07-2018 02:35:10 :::
CRM-M-40551-2016(OM) -3-
further contended that though the complainant has levelled allegations of
unnatural sex against the husband but she refused to undergo the medical
examination herself to substantiate those assertions. He has further
contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation
and to render all co-operation, therefore, he be granted concession of
anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned
counsel for the complainant while countering the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegations in the FIR are
correct and it was only when the complainant could not bear and tolerate
her maltreatment, harassment and torture at the hands of the petitioner and
his family members that she took the step of lodging FIR against the
petitioner and his family members and there is no question of her doing so
much less at the instance of her parents to extract money from the
petitioner. It is further contended that all the dowry articles of the
complainant are in possession of the petitioner, who has committed
criminal breach of trust in respect thereof and his custodial interrogation is
necessary to effect the recovery of dowry articles and for effective
investigation. As regards the allegations under Section 377 IPC, it is
contended that the complainant had got herself medically examined on
10.12.2016 and as per opinion given by the examining doctor in the MLR,
the possibility of unnatural sexual assault could not be ruled out. A prayer
for the dismissal of the petition has been made.
After considering the rival contentions and going through the
record, I find that there there is no merit in the petition. Pre arrest bail is a
3 of 4
10-07-2018 02:35:10 :::
CRM-M-40551-2016(OM) -4-
discretionary relief and is to be granted in exceptional cases and not in
routine. It is meant to save the innocent persons from harassment and
inconvenience and not to screen the culprits from custodial interrogation.
There are allegations of petitioner having committed criminal breach of
trust with regard to ISTRIDHAN articles of the complainant. Though such
allegations are denied by the petitioner stating that he is not in possession
of any such articles but then this denial is not of much value. There are
serious allegations of petitioner committing unnatural sex with his wife –
the complainant against her wishes.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is definitely required
for complete and effective investigation. In case custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is denied to the investigating agency that would leave many
loose ends and gaps in the investigation affecting the investigation being
carried out adversely which is not called for.
Thus finding no merit in the petition, the same stands
dismissed.
6.7.2018 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
10-07-2018 02:35:10 :::