IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210 CRM-M-59738-2024 Date of decision: 14.02.2025 VARUN KUMAR ....PETITIONER V/s STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL , J .

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.120 dated 09.10.2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station PS Women, District Jalandhar.

2. On 29.11.2024, the following order was passed:-

“Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.120 dated 09.10.2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498- of IPC at Police Station PS Women, District Jalandhar; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.

Inter alia contends that the genesis of the FIR in question is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the complainant/wife; petitioner is willing to return all the dowry articles/istridhan in his possession to the complainant; petitioner is ready for an amicable settlement as well & petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate therein in accordance with law.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

Adjourned to 19.12.2024.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 04.12.2024 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 Section

482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”

3. The Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, is present in virtual mode and has been heard. He has furnished an explanation to the satisfaction of this Court regarding lack of instructions with the State counsel on

07.02.2025. Accordingly, this aspect of the matter is closed.

4. Learned State counsel, on instructions, has stated that pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation. However, learned State counsel as also the learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that only partial recovery of dowry articles has been effected and remaining dowry articles are yet to be recovered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no dowry articles/Istri-dhan are in possession of the petitioner and, in fact, the entire dowry articles/Istri-dhan is with the aggrieved-wife.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the paper book.

7. It will be apposite to refer to a judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed by this Court in CRM-M-60647-2023 titled as “ Varun Sharma Vs .

State of Punjab and anothe r ” , relevant whereof reads as under:

“11. As a sequel to the above said discussion, the following principle of law emerge :-

(I) Non-recovery of dowry articles/Istri-dhan cannot ordinarily be a ground, by itself, for declining a plea for grant of anticipatory bail to the husband or his relatives.

(II) The conduct of an accused, is indeed, a relevant factor for consideration of a plea for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of such accused. Such conduct would also include the cooperation, in accordance with law, extended by such accused for recovery of dowry articles/Istri-dhan. Whether or not such cooperation was extended by the accused would be ascertainable from the facts and circumstances of a given case.

(III) In exceptional cases, if the peculiar and/