The lack of proof regarding the return of dowry articles and the apprehension expressed by the complainant influenced the court's decision to reject the anticipatory bail application.

JUDGMENT

1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 13/2021, Police Station Harsaura (District Police Bhiwadi), District Alwar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the daughter-in-law ¼cgq½ filed complaint against the father-in-law ¼llqj½ that after marriage, complainant never came at the matrimonial home; that the husband of the complainant expired through natural death approximately three years ago; that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. With these submissions, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner prayed that the benefit of anticipatory bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant appearing through video conferencing have fervently and vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that dowry articles which have specifically been mentioned in the First Information Report have not been returned back to the complainant despite demand note written by the complainant. Learned counsel further stated that the complainant apprehended that she would go the house of the accused-petitioner then, in that case, she would be misbehaved or ill-treated by the accused-petitioner.

4. It was brought to the notice of the Court that after passing the interim order in favour of the accused-petitioner by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.05.2021, the main accused appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer and during interrogation note dated 05.05.2021, the accused stated that the marriage of his son and complainant solemnized in child-hood; that neither any dowry was received by him nor demanded back by the complainant; that which of the dowry article available at his home, the same will be returned back to the complainant within a period of 5 days.

5. After perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that there is no such receipt which has proved that the dowry article have been returned back to the complainant or not.

6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail in favour of the accused-petitioner and thus, the present anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected.

7. Accordingly and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner Kailash S/o Rameshwar is rejected.

8. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the accused-petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender himself before the learned Trial Court within a period of 10 days and moves any regular bail application, in that eventuality, the learned Trial Court is directed to hear and decide the regular bail application of the accused-petitioner, preferably on the very day as per the provisions of law.