CRM M-53013 of 2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM M-53013 of 2018
Date of Decision: February 05, 2019
Vishal Verma ……Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana …. Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present : Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ripu Daman, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant.
FATEH DEEP SINGH, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose off anticipatory bail application
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. moved in FIR No. 665 dated 05.11.2018
under Sections 323, 377, 406, 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC and Section
376(1) IPC which is added lateron, Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar,
District Hisar.
In her complaint, complainant-Anika claimed that present
petitioner Vishal Verma and she got married in Mohali in a Hotel on
21.07.2018 wherein huge dowry and costly gifts were given to the boy
and other family members. After the marriage, it is alleged that the
husband-petitioner Vishal Verma misbehaved with the complainant
and forced her into unnatural sex and she was physically tortured and
1 of 5
17-02-2019 02:09:35 :::
CRM M-53013 of 2018 -2-
on refusal of the complainant, she was physically abused.
Subsequently, when the dispute could not be sorted out, the
complainant brought the matter to the notice of her parents as well as
in-laws but to no avail and subsequently on the basis of her complaint
the present case was got registered.
Shri P.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner at
the very onset contends that the petitioner had joined the investigation
and has sought to contend that the complainant was earlier married to
one Sukhwinder Singh on 22 April, 2014 at Hisar and she left the
matrimonial home on 07.04.2014 and got lodged a false FIR against
the then previous husband and, thereafter, fleecing him of
Rs.10,00,000/- compromising the matter and securing a divorce.
Submitting that in a same fashion, the present case has been brought
about further contending that the father of the girl as per his statement
claims to have retired as SDO PWD Hisar when he as per the RTI
information collected by the petitioner’s family was working as a road
inspector and has rather duped the family of the boy alleging that there
is neither any allegation of specific entrustment much less any case of
breach of trust. It is argued that under the amended definition of
Section 375 IPC being grown up such an sexual intercourse does not
fall within the definition of rape and even offence under Section
377 IPC becomes doubtful on account of lack of medical evidence. It
is argued that much of the allegations regarding gold jewellery and
costly gifts do not fall within the terminology of “istridhan” though
2 of 5
17-02-2019 02:09:36 :::
CRM M-53013 of 2018 -3-
which have been returned back are only falling within the scope of
gifts submitting that it was a second marriage of both the parties and,
therefore, giving huge dowry or lavish marriage is unacceptable and
has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana on assistance of SI Raj
Rani though accepts the that the petitioner has joined the investigation
but claims that certain gold articles are yet to be recovered and that
there are serious allegations of rape as well as unnatural offence
against the petitioner/husband and, therefore, his custodial
interrogation is essential.
Going through the submissions, it is the stand of the State
counsel that the petitioner has joined the investigation and only certain
gold ornaments are to be recovered but could not elaborate the items.
The documents placed on the record show that the first marriage of the
complainant took place on 22.04.2014 and she left the matrimonial
home on 07.04.2014, i.e. after 5 days and thereafter as is detailed in
the orders placed on the record of learned District Judge (Family
Court) Hisar dated 28.10.2015, the complainant had received
Rs.10,00,000/- from the then husband and got the marriage dissolved
by mutual consent. The claim of the father that he is an SDO as per the
statement made before the police on 25.09.2018 is negated by the
seniority list of road inspector placed on the record procured by the
petitioner under the Right to Information Act where he is shown to be
working as Work Mistri. However, without adverting on that aspect of
3 of 5
17-02-2019 02:09:36 :::
CRM M-53013 of 2018 -4-
the matter, however, claim of the complainant that it was a lavish
marriage appears to be highly improbable and unplausible proposition
in view of the economic status of the father of the complainant as
borne from the records placed on the file. The order (Annexure P-9)
placed on the record shows that co-accused have been allowed
anticipatory bail by the lower Court. To the specific query of the
Court, the learned State counsel could not bear out any allegations of
specific entrustment of the articles of “isthridhan” to the petitioner as
well as criminal breach of trust qua him. The articles detailed in the
FIR are only falling within the terminology of gifts given to various
relations of the husband. There is no cogent evidence to show by any
medical evidence any signs of unnatural sex have been performed with
the complainant and the medical advice is quite vague and
unambiguous. More so, it has now days become a trend in our society
to fleece the husband side by levelling shocking allegations which stir
the conscience of the Court and the trend of slapping of Sections 376
and 377 IPC.
In the light of what has been detailed and discussed
above, together with the fact that culpability, if any, of the petitioner
shall be determined at the trial which is not likely to be concluded in
the near future and it would be travesty of justice if the petitioner is
sent behind the bars. Therefore, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be
released on interim bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating
Officer. The petitioner shall, however, join the investigation as and
4 of 5
17-02-2019 02:09:36 :::
CRM M-53013 of 2018 -5-
when called for to do so and he shall abide by the conditions as
envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Disposed off.
February 05, 2019 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
17-02-2019 02:09:36 :::