Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SUMEET GOEL, J.
X (30554) - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No. 30554 of 2024
Decided On : 23-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties :Mr. J.K. Singla Advocate , Ms. Kashish Garg Advocate , Mr. Anup Singh AAG, Punjab , Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl Advocate

The conduct of the accused is critical in determining anticipatory bail; misuse of interim protection can lead to denial of bail.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A and 406 - Anticipatory bail - Petition filed for anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of dowry demand, harassment, and cruelty - Complainant alleges continuous demands for dowry and physical abuse by the petitioner and his family members - Court emphasizes the importance of the accused's conduct during investigation and the misuse of interim protection granted - Petition dismissed due to lack of cooperation with the investigation. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 12)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Conduct of Accused - The conduct of the accused is a crucial factor in determining the grant of anticipatory bail; misuse of interim protection can lead to denial of bail. (Paras 8, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of demanding dowry and subjecting the complainant to mental and physical harassment post-marriage, with specific incidents of abuse detailed. The FIR was registered following the complainant's allegations of continuous dowry demands and physical abuse.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner has shown defiant conduct by not cooperating with the investigation and misusing the interim protection granted by the Court.

Issues: The main issues addressed include the conduct of the petitioner during the investigation and the implications of non-recovery of dowry articles on the anticipatory bail plea.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the conduct of the accused is essential in evaluating the plea for anticipatory bail, and misuse of interim protection cannot be tolerated.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral):- Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0004 dated 28.05.2024, under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC registered at Police Station Women, District Bathinda.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question relates to demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty being meted out to the complainant by her husband (petitioner-herein) and father-in-law, mother-in-law, maternal aunt of husband, brother-in-law, respectively. It has been alleged by the complainant that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 13.04.2021. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage including 20 lacs cash, gold kara, chain, ring etc. Despite this, complainant’s in-laws continuously demanded more dowry, including a car and insulted the complainant for being from a poor family. The complainant has further alleged that the petitioner and his family members subject her to mental and physical harassment and continuously kept on pressurizing her to meet their dowry demands. They frequently insulted the complainant, stating that the dowry given was insufficient and humiliated her in front of others. Despite her best efforts to maintain peace in the matrimonial home, the demands of the accused for more dowry escalated and she was threatened with dire consequences if their demands were not fulfilled which caused her immense distress and fear for her safety. The complainant was physically and mentally abused, especially on 28.11.2021, when she was locked in a room and beaten up for not fulfilling the dowry demands. On 29.11.2021, the parents of the complainant were insulted when they visited her. It has also been alleged that the complainant’s in-laws refused to allow the complainant to return to her matrimonial home after the birth of her daughter on 2 5.06.2022, expressing their dis-satisfaction over the birth of a girl child instead of a son. Multiple attempts were made by the parents of the complainant and relatives to reconcile the matter and rehabilitate the complainant but the same could not be fructified. The complainant’s in-laws persisted in their demands for additional dowry. Furthermore, they misappropriated the istridhan of the complainant and continued to harass her both emotionally and physically. The complainant has requested that legal action against her husband, in-laws and other family members for their role in dowry harassment, physical abuse and desertion and hence an FIR ibid was got registered.

3. On 26.06.2024, the following order was passed:

Inter alia contends that genesis of the FIR in question is the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and complainant-wife; petitioner is willing for an amicable settlement as well; & the petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate therein as also make endeavour to have the dowry articles recovered which are in his possession.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Advocate has filed vakalatnama for the complainant. The same be taken on record.

Adjourned to 17.07.2024.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 29.06.2024 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Se