IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that non-recovery of dowry articles is not a valid ground for cancelling anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for evidence of misuse of bail.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

This order will dispose of aforesaid two petitions filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to private respondent(s) vide order dated 06.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in FIR No.32 dated 04.03.2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Women Police Station Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana.

2. The petitioner is the father of the victim, whose marriage was solemnized with the private respondent-Karanbir Singh Kassowal on 22.11.2015 according to sikh rites and ceremonies at Jalandhar, Punjab. As per the prime stand of the petitioner (herein), the private respondent(s) along with their family members used to torment the victim on account of dowry and hence an FIR ibid got registered by him.

3. Vide order dated 06.02.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, the respondent No.2-Karanbir Singh Kassowal was granted anticipatory bail; relevant whereof reads as under :

“Heard. This court while granting interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner on 17.01.2023, had referred the matter to Mediation and report of Mediator namely, Ms. Durgesh Bakshi, reveals that despite several efforts the matter could not be settled by way of mediation. Admittedly, in compliance of order dated 17.01.2023, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and apparently custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required as present FIR has been lodged by the father. Regarding non recovery of entire jewellery articles, it may be added here that our Hon’ble High Court in case titled as Priyanka vs. State of Haryana, bearing CRM-M-42197-2020, decided on 07.01.2021, has held that in view of the law laid down in Prit Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(5) RCR (Crl.) 771, proceedings under Sections 406 and 498A of the IPC are not meant for recovery of jewellery and dowry articles and the complainant, if so chooses, can move Civil Court for recovery of said articles. Moreover, after taking into account the allegations and counter allegations, it transpires that demand and entrustment of certain articles to the petitioners is a disputed question of fact, which would be considered when the evidence is led during trial. Hence, in view of facts detailed above, without commenting on the merits of the case, order dated 17.01.2023, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute”

3.1 Vide order dated 06.02.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, the respondent No.2-Sardar Rajinder Singh Kassowal was granted anticipatory bail; relevant whereof reads as under :

“Heard. Admittedly, in compliance of order dated 24.01.2023, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and apparently custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. As far as non-recovery of dowry articles etc. is concerned, it may be added here that our Hon’ble High Court in case titled as Priyanka vs. State of Haryana, bearing CRM M-42197-2020, decided on 07.01.2021, has held that in view of the law laid down in Prit Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (5) RCR (Crl.) 771, proceedings under Sections 406 and 498A of the IPC are not meant for recovery of jewellery and dowry articles and the complainant, if so chooses, can move Civil Court for recovery of said articles. Moreover, demand and entrustment of certain articles to the petitioner is a disputed question of fact, which would be considered when the evidence is led during trial. Hence, in view of facts detailed above, without commenting on the merits of the case, interim bail-order dated 24.01.2023, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute.”

4. The afore-said order(s) dated 06.02.2023 have been challenged by the petitioner (herein)-complainant in CRM-M-9029-2023 & CRM-M-9118-2023 respectively.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the private respondent(s)