Non-recovery of dowry articles alone cannot be a ground for declining anticipatory bail. The conduct of the accused, including cooperation in the recovery of dowry articles, is a relevant factor for consideration of anticipatory bail. In exceptional cases, the court may direct the accused to deposit an appropriate amount towards the dowry articles.

Judgment

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0092 dated 04.11.2023, under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Women, Patiala (Annexure P-1).

2. The FIR was registered on the statement of complainant–Manisha Sharma alleging that her marriage was solemnized with Varun Sharma (petitioner herein) on 25.05.2022. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage and around Rs.25.00 lacs was spent in the marriage including gold ornaments etc. However, the accused were never satisfied and immediately after her marriage, she was maltreated, harassed and taunted by her in-laws including the petitioner (herein) for bringing less dowry. She was also subjected to physical cruelty as well. Thereafter, with the intervention of various respectable persons and panchayat, matter was compromised and complainant was rehabilitated. However, the behavior of her in-laws and petitioner did not change. The petitioner, who was a habitual drunkard, used to give beatings to the complainant quite often and her in-laws also used to quarrel with her for the reason that she had not brought sufficient dowry. It was further alleged that the petitioner and her in-laws also pressurized her to bring cash from her parents. On refusal, she was given severe beatings and subjected to maltreatment. On 14.08.2022, the petitioner had left the complainant at her parental house on account of Roka ceremony of her brother but never took her back. After much persuasion by the brother of the complainant, she was taken back to her matrimonial home on 20.08.2022. Thereafter in October 2022, complainant was again left at her parental house by the petitioner as she had to appear for her IELTS exams but he (husband) never took her back. Thereafter, petitioner raised a demand of Rs.5.00 lacs. As the family of the complainant failed to fulfill the said demand, complainant was never taken back and has been residing at her parental house since October 2022. On these set of allegations, instant FIR was registered and investigation ensued.

3. Vide order dated 02.12.2023, the petitioner was granted the concession of interim anticipatory bail, relevant part whereof reads as under:-

“2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the complainant/respondent No.2 on 27.05.2022 but no child has been born from the wedlock. The matrimonial dispute has occurred on account of certain health issues being suffered by the petitioner. At the earlier instance, the complainant/respondent No.2 had submitted an affidavit dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-8) to the effect that no dowry articles were given at the time of marriage. Besides, the petitioner has instituted a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage and the FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready and willing to amicably settle the matrimonial dispute”

Thereafter, no amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and hence the case was put up before this Court for adjudication of the anticipatory bail on merits thereof.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question genesis whereof actually is the matrimonial discord between the petitioner-husband and the complainant-wife. It has been further argued that the petitioner has joined investigation in terms of interim order earlier passed by this Court and has cooperated therein. It is further submitted that no recovery of dowry articles/Istri-dhan is required to be made from the petitioner. Thus, it is prayed that petitioner be extended the concession of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioner has j