262 (2 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61774-2024 Date of Decision:- 09.07.2025 AVTAR SINGH ....Petitioner Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent (2) CRM-M-47771-2024 CHARAN SINGH ....Petitioner Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Rishab Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner (s)

in both cases.

Mr. Sulinder Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Lakhvinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. Petitioner – Avtar Singh (in CRM-M-61774-2024) and petitioner Charan Singh (in CRM-M-47771-2024) have filed two separate petitions under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applicable from 01.07.2024) for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.232 dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 34, 498-A of IPC and Section 406 (added later-on) registered at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad, Haryana. Both petitions are taken up together for hearing and decision, being arisen out of the same FIR.

2. Facts of the case are, complainant Hasdeep Kaur filed written complaint against her husband and in-laws family alleging that her marriage was performed with Avtar Singh on 16.04.2020. Her parents had given cash of Rs.5 lakhs, gold jewellery 20 tolas, LCD, AC at the time of marriage. Soon after marriage, accused started raising demand for a car. She was maltreated and beaten up several times. During pregnancy she was forced to consume medicine for miscarriage and on her denial she was beaten up. After the birth of girl child, there was demand for expensive items and a car. Matter also came before Panchayat. Finally on 26.03.2024 she was left at Ratia by her husband. She was told to return home after satisfying their demand for a car. With these allegations, present FIR has been registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that Avtar Singh petitioner is husband and Charan Singh petitioner is father-in-law of the complainant. Allegations levelled against them are false and denied. Petitioners have already joined the investigation. Dowry articles are already recovered. It is wrongly claimed that cash amount or the gold ornaments are yet to be recovered. They are ready to abide by the terms and conditions of bail order. Therefore, their anticipatory bail applications may be allowed.

4. Bail applications are opposed by learned counsel representing complainant assisted by learned counsel representing State. Status report has been filed. It is pointed out that FIR has been registered after thorough investigation. It is stated that some of the dowry articles were recovered but the petitioners did not cooperate with the investigating agency, as a result some of the dowry articles are yet to be recovered. The anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioners were rightly declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide order dated 16.09.2024 (Annexure P-2). Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Therefore, anticipatory bail applications filed by petitioners may be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record. Petitioners Avtar Singh and Charan Sijngh were granted interim relief vide order dated 16.12.2024. During the pendency of both bail applications, matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre which remained unsettled. They could not reach at any amicable settlement. I have carefully perused status report. It is not the case that dowry articles have not been recovered altogether. As per the status report Avtar Singh joined investigation during the pendency of anticipatory bail application filed before learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad and during that process he joined investigation on 13.09.2024 and the dowry articles detailed in para No.5 of the status report were recovered. Now it is claimed that cash of Rs.5 lakhs, gold ornaments and one LCD are yet to be recovered. Along with the status repo