CRM not M-39467 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.
Misc.
not M- 39467 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 18, 2012.
Sameer Bhandari.....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab.....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Manu K.Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Gurinder S.Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent no.2.
***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CRM No.75301 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRM No.75300 of 2012 Requests for placing on record copy of complaint filed by the complainant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as Annexure A4.
The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
CRM stands disposed of.
CRM not M-39467 o”
2. CRM not M-39467 of 2011 The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.39 dated 12.10.2011, under Sections 406/498A/323/341/506 IPC, registered at police station Women Cell, Patiala.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dismissing anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner.
Brief allegations are that, marriage of petitioner with complainant was solemnized on 23.07.2009.
Sufficient articles were given in dowry.
However, after some time of the marriage, petitioner and other family members started raising demand of more dowry.
Petitioner was pursuing Ph.D.in Pharmacy, Punjabi University, Patiala whereas the complainant is working as Lecturer in Chemistry in M.M.Modi College, Patiala.
There are specific allegations that on 14.09.2011 at about 8.00 PM, petitioner gave merciless beatings to complainant.
Complainant got herself medico-legally examined vide Annexure P1 from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala according to which, three injuries were found.
Though the same were complaint of pain.
However, X-ray and surgical opinion was advised.
However, Annexure P1 also shows that she was admitted in the hospital on 15.02.2011.
Copy of further treatment record has not been produced by the petitioner.
However, it has been stated by learned counsel for respondent- State, on instruction from ASI Gurdev Singh, that she was discharged on the CRM not M-39467 o”
3. next day and however, no fracture was found and she was treated with medicines only.
At the time of issuing notice of motion, it was contended on behalf of petitioner that dowry articles were already recovered from mother- in-law, who was granted concession of pre-arrest bail.
However, perusal of said order shows that entire articles were not recovered.
Some golden articles are yet to be recovered.
Parties were also sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court however, compromise could not be effected.
Petitioner has also placed on record copy of complaint filed by the complainant under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 1005 and drawn my attention towards requisite paragraph, wherein it has been mentioned that present petitioner be directed to return Istridhan including two gold sets and four gold Karas weighing 11/12 Tolas.
Even it has been stated by learned counsel for respondent-State, on instruction from ASI Gurdev Singh, that these are the articles, which remain to be recovered.
However, the said articles have not been got recovered despite taking 2/3 dates on behalf of petitioner for the purpose.
It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that he is ready to settle the same, if any bill regarding their purchase is shown by the complainant.
However, in my view this plea cannot be entertained at this stage.
He has also placed reliance upon various judgments rendered by this Court; Samerjeet Jossan v.
State of Punjab (Crl.
Misc.
not M-32104 of 2011) decided on 03.01.2012, Vishal Gulati v.
State of Punjab (Crl.
Misc.
not M-17915 of 2012) decided on 05.07.2012, CRM not M-39467 o”
4. Barinder Kumar Passi and another v.
State of Punjab (Crl.Misc.
not M- 1354 of 2011) decided on 10.02.2011 and Anil Rajput and others v.
State of Haryana (Crl.Misc.
not M-26900 of 2008) decided on 21.04.2009.
However, each criminal case has to be decided on its peculiar facts particularly in the matters of granting anticipatory bail.
Petitioner is the main accused being husband.
He committed various acts of cruelty including the acts of physical violence upon the complainant-wife.
He has also misappropriated some of the dowry articles i.e.golden ornaments.
Hence, in view of these facts, present petitioner-accused is not entitled for extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Sameer Bhandari is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.
Interim order dated 29.12.2011 already granted in his favour stands vacated.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 18, 2012.
JUDGE ‘om’