The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail in a non-cognizable FIR alleging dowry harassment and cruelty. The court held that no extraordinary circumstances existed given the petitioner's alleged oblique motives involving an ex parte divorce.
Application for pre-arrest bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No.M-5350 of 2011 [1]
0IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-5350 of 2011
Date of Decision: August 18, 2011
Rajesh Bhatia
…..Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
Mr.Namit Khurana, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No.2.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of his wife Sakshi Bhatia. She filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging that she was married to the petitioner on April 23, 1999 at Haridwar. There are three children Jyoti, Sahil and Palak born out of the wed-lock. The dowry articles which were entrusted to
Crl. Misc. No.M-5350 of 2011 [2]
the petitioner and his family members had been misappropriated. The behaviour of the petitioner had been cruel from the very beginning. She was maltreated and harassed on account of demand of dowry. There are allegations against the petitioner that he used to give beatings to the complainant whenever she demanded any article or money for domestic expenses. She was turned out of the matrimonial home on account of not fulfilling the demand of car. With the intervention of panchayat she had again joined the petitioner in the matrimonial home. The demand of sum of ` 3 lacs in case was again raised on 9.10.2007. She was again turned out of the matrimonial home alongwith her children. Again the complainant joined the company of the petitioner on an assurance given by him to mend his ways. In July 2010, the complainant was again turned out of the house.
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that on earlier occasions on account of petty family disputes the matter had been compromised and that the complainant herself is a quarrelsome lady.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. The petitioner, no doubt, in pursuance to the interim orders passed by this Court, has joined investigation; he had also deposited a sum of ` 10000/- as litigation expenses with the Registry. The claim of the petitioner regarding his innocence is patently a farce. He has, with an oblique motive to get rid of the complainant has obtained an ex-parte divorce.
Counsel for the petitioner had brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had obtained an ex-parte divorce against the complainant.
Crl. Misc. No.M-5350 of 2011
[3]
On complainant having shown ignorance on the said ex-parte divorce, a copy was supplied to the complainant to enable the complainant to decide further course of action in her matrimonial life.
There has been persistent cruelty by the petitioner against his wife, as is apparent from the allegations in the FIR which has been registered under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. No extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Dismissed.
August 18, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted in a case alleging dowry harassment and cruelty within a marital family.
Whether the petitioner obtaining an ex parte divorce against the complainant is a factor against granting bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh Bhatia
State of Haryana
Sakshi Bhatia
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
