The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance with constitutional provisions, guidelines for arrest and interrogation, and amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure in matrimonial cases. The Court emphasized the need for just, fair, and reasonable procedures in arrests and investigations, and highlighted the protection provided to the accused under Section 198A of the Cr.P.C.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner/accused for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.413/2016, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, Police Station Madhu Vihar.

2. The facts emerging from the record are that the complainant Priyanka Sharma had made a complaint to the police alleging therein that she got married with accused Udit Raj Puniya on 13.04.2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. In the marriage, the father of the complainant spent about Rs.75 lakhs including 100 tolas of gold, a car and other expenses due to pressure of her in-laws. After four days of marriage, all the stridhan articles were taken by the father-in-law and other in-laws of the complainant on the pretext that the same would be kept in safe custody. It was further alleged that the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant asked her to bring Rs.2 crores from her parents for opening a petrol pump. The complainant and her husband went to Goa where her husband asked her to pay for the trip. The husband had a discussion with the complainant about opening a petrol pump for his elder brother. The complainant became pregnant and one day, she was pushed out of her matrimonial house. Thereafter, the complainant stayed with her parents and all the expenses relating to her treatment were borne by her parents. On 14.02.2011, the complainant was blessed with a girl child. The in-laws of the complainant were not happy with the birth of a girl child. Husband of the complainant refused to keep her and never supported his daughter.

3. Initially, the complaint was made by the complainant to the Crime Against Women Cell and when the mediation between the parties failed, the matter was referred for registration of FIR.

4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Senior Counsel for the complainant were heard.

5. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant are that the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant was a simple marriage in which no demand was made by the petitioner and his family members. Only few gifts were given by the relatives and friends of both the parties. At the time of engagement, father of the complainant gave a cheque of Rs.10 lakhs which was never deposited as the petitioner did not want anything from the complainant. Even the father of the petitioner transferred a sum of Rs.9,98,500/- to the bank account of the complainant as her father wanted to purchase a property. The complainant used to fight with the petitioner on trivial issues and she hardly remained with the petitioner for six months. All the stridhan articles including the car have already been handed over to the complainant.

6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposed the bail application on the ground that all the stridhan articles have not been returned to the complainant by her husband and in-laws. A raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner but he was not found there and thus he is evading arrest. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation as the allegations are serious in nature and there is strong possibility that he might jump bail.

7. Learned APP for the State has informed that during the pendency of the instant bail application, a raid was conducted and some alleged articles were recovered from the persons other than the accused/applicant.

8. After going through the rival contentions of both the sides, this Court has gone through various aspects involved in the instant case.

BAIL IN MATRIMONIAL CASES

9. Article 21 of the Constitution of India reads as under :

“Protection of life and personal liberty.-No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

10. The important components of Article 21 are the deprivation of life, deprivati