Judgment:
CRM not M-35506 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-35506 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:-9.11.2012 Amrish Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) The epitome of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of complainant Harjinder Kaur (for brevity “the complainant”.) was solemnized with petitioner Amrish Sharma on 8.12.1999 at Moga. After the expiry of 3-4 months of the marriage, the petitioner started harassing her and taunted on the ground that the marriage was not according to their status. Her parents were stated to have given sufficient dowry articles, golden ornaments and cash of Rs.50,000/- for a bike at the time of marriage. The complainant claimed that the accused, including the petitioner-husband, demanded a big car and cash for purchasing a plot at Mohali. On her refusal, the accused gave beatings, harassed & tortured her. CRM not M-35506 of 2012 (O&M”
2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, according to the complainant that the petitioner- accused taunted, harassed, tortured and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner-husband and his parents, by virtue of FIR No.179 dated 27.10.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station City Moga, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
3. Having exercised and remained unsuccessful of his right of anticipatory bail in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition in this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail in the indicated case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this respect.
5. Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
6. As is evident from the record that, inter-alia direct and very serious allegations are assigned in the FIR to the petitioner-husband that he repeatedly taunted, harassed, tortured, demanded a big car and cash for purchasing a plot at Mohali from the complainant. He was not CRM not M-35506 of 2012 (O&M) 3 satisfied with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. The complainant was tortured and treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles by the petitioner-husband.
7. The next celebrated contention of learned counsel that as there is no reliable material on record to prove the misappropriation of, and specific demand of dowry articles, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, lacks merit as well. That stage of proving the misappropriation and demand of dowry articles by the husband, has not yet reached. At the time of consideration of the grant of anticipatory bail or otherwise, only allegations and relatable material have to be kept in focus at this initial stage of investigation.
8. As discussed here-in-above, very serious and direct allegations of torture and cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles are assigned to the petitioner (husband). To me, if he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of dowry articles/case property is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of case property from the main accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public CRM not M-35506 of 2012 (O&M) 4 interest likely to be affected thereby. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations of commission of pointed offences and that the recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected, to my mind, the petitioner is not at all entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition filed by petitioner-husband is hereby dismissed as such.
10. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 9.11.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge