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 :::