Petitioner husband filed anticipatory bail petition in a dowry harassment case involving allegations of cruelty and denial of articles. The court dismissed the petition, holding that granting bail would hinder recovery of dowry articles and impede investigation.
Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC 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.
CRM No. M-27147 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-27147 of 2012
Date of Decision:-5.10.2012
Kaushik Balasubramaniam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.Sandeep S.Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Raj Preet Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)
The epitome of the facts and material, which requires to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by main accused (husband) and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of complainant-respondent No.2 Rashim Kaushik (for brevity “the complainant”) was solemnized with petitioner Kaushik Balasubramaniam on 24.1.2007, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies at Ludhiana. An amount of approximately ` 15 lacs was stated to have been spent and gold ornaments, sufficient dowry articles, mentioned in Annexure A attached with the FIR, were given by her parents, as per the demand of the accused at the time of solemnization of marriage. The articles were entrusted to the accused. It was claimed that
CRM No. M-27147 of 2012 2
they have again demanded a sum of 1,50,000/- to purchase the furniture from Bangalore, which was given to the accused by the parents of the complainant. According to the complainant that in the month of April, 2007, the accused again asked her to bring 50,000/- for purchase of Honda Activa Scooter and one laptop. The complainant asked and her parents gave the amount to the accused to purchase the scooter as well as laptop. They continued demanding cash and dowry articles from the complainant and on her refusal, they started harassing, taunting her and demanded a luxury car for the petitioner as well.
CRM No. M-27147 of 2012 3
CRM No. M-27147 of 2012 4
relatable material have to be kept in focus at this initial stage of investigation.
CRM No. M-27147 of 2012 5
Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations of commission of indicated offences and the fact that the recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected, to my mind, the petitioner-husband is not at all entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
present petition.
5.10.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the husband accused in a dowry harassment case where dowry articles remain unrecovered.
Whether the permission of anticipatory bail to co-accused parents is a relevant factor for granting the same to the main accused husband.
Whether granting anticipatory bail would obstruct the police investigation and recovery of case properties.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kaushik Balasubramaniam
State of Punjab
Rashim Kaushik
Mehinder Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
