211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 21.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2025 Vaibhav Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikalp Hooda, Advocate, Mr. Reetesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.S. Thind, DAG Punjab Mr. Sourabh Singla, Advocate for the complainant *****

KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. Apprehending arrest in FIR No.34 dated 22.04.2023, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station – PS Women, Patiala, District Patiala, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Vide order dated 12.06.2023, the petitioner was granted the concession of interim bail and was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer.

3. Shorn of details, the allegations levelled are that it was only after the complainant's family acceded to the condition of her in-laws demanding Rs. 10 lacs, was the marriage solemnized on 28.11.2017, albeit with great pomp and show. Numerous dowry articles were exchanged, however, after a few days of marriage, the accused persons started pressurizing her for a car as also cash to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs. She was allegedly subjected to harassment on various instances for the fulfillment of their whims, and even the birth of their daughter did not pacify the situation. Ultimately, the said amount was given to the accused in installments over the period between March 2018 to May 2020, whereafter it was said by the petitioner-accused in panchayat that he will take good care of the complainant and the child. Nonetheless after a few days their demand for a car resurfaced, to which the complainant flatly refused and as a consequence of the same, she and her daughter were ousted from the matrimonial home.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The entire family members of the petitioner i.e. father, mother, sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner were roped in the present FIR. However, subsequently they were declared innocent by the police and now the petitioner has been falsely nominated in the present FIR. It has further been argued that non-recovery of dowry artilces can not be a ground to decline the plea for grant of anticipatory bail to the husband or his relatives. Reliance is placed upon orders passed in Varun Sharma vs. State of Punjab and another, 2024(2) RCR(Criminal) 151, CRM-M-42295-2024 titled as Nandkumar Parsram Ailani and another vs. State of Punjab and another decided on 16.10.2024, CRM-M-1964-2020 titled as Davinder Singh vs. State of Punjab decided on 17.03.2023, CRM-M-34855-2022 titled as Kamaldeep Bansal vs. State of Punjab and another decided on 15.05.2024 and Pooran Singh vs.

State of Delhi, 2022(1) RCR(Criminal) 503.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel on instructions submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation, however, only partial recovery of dowry articles has been effected and remaining dowry articles are yet to be recovered.

6. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another 2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 527, held as under:

5. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The Institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases,