High Court dismissed the petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a dowry death and cruelty case, refusing extraordinary relief on the record's merits.
Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed being devoid of merit.
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.M.No.M-13149 of 2012(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-13149 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 7, 2012
Taveesh Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.N.K.Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.26509 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-13149 of 2012
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.41, dated 6.2.2012, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Phase I, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Briefly stated, petitioner is husband of the complainant. Marriage between petitioner and complainant was performed on 3.4.2010. There are serious allegations regarding demand of dowry, as is clear from
Crl.M.No.M-13149 of 2012(O&M)
-2-
the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, dismissing bail application of the petitioner. Annexure P1 is not complete translation of the FIR. Even copy of the application, which was given by the complainant to Senior Superintendent of Police has not been placed on record. As per the allegations, complainant was given beatings and thrown out of the matrimonial home just after one year of the marriage on account of dowry. Matter was duly enquired into by Senior Superintendent of Police and only thereafter the present FIR was registered.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that entire dowry articles have already been returned to the complainant and family members as is clear from affidavits, Annexures P11 to P13.
However, the plea cannot be accepted. Specific plea has been taken by the complainant before learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali, that no golden ornaments was recovered.
Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Taveesh Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
7.5.2012
meenu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in case of FIR No. 41 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC regarding dowry allegations.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Taveesh Singh
State of Punjab
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
