The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court noted the matrimonial dispute background.
Petition allowed; petition invited to attach himself with the investigation and comply with conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
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.
1
CRM-M No. 29657 of 2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 29657 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: November 21, 2012
Rajiv Kawatra
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Sidakmeet Sandhu, Advocate, for Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P. Malik, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocate, for Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
CRM-M No. 29657 of 2012 (O&M) 2
lodged the present FIR. He further contends that the complainant-wife was insisting the petitioner to reside at Hisar, but on account of responsibility of the remaining members of his family, the petitioner was not in a position to live at Hisar. He also contends that the allegations levelled in the FIR are general in nature. No specific allegation of harassment or demand of dowry has been alleged. He also contends that all the members of the family of the petitioner were named in the FIR, but during investigation the allegations against the rest of the family members of the petitioner, were found to be false. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Jagdish Thakkar v. State of Delhi, 1993 Criminal Court Judgments 103 . 3. Learned counsel for the State and Mr. Saurabh Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant, have vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. They submit that though the other family members of the petitioner were found to be innocent during investigation, but the recovery of the dowry articles have to be effected from the petitioner. Even the car and other articles, which were allegedly handed over to the petitioner at the time of the marriage, have not been returned. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant has further argued that the petitioner is maintaining illicit relations with another lady, who has been named as respondent No. 4 in the complaint filed by respondent No. 2-complainant before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, and ignoring the complainant.
3
CRM-M No. 29657 of 2012 (O&M)
4
CRM-M No. 29657 of 2012 (O&M)
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE
November 21, 2012 PKapoor
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who was accused of offences under Sections 302 IPC, 406 IPC, 498-A IPC, 420 IPC and 506 IPC.
Whether the allegations levelled against the co-accused in the FIR were general in nature and if the recovery of dowry articles was the sole basis for implicating the.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jagdish Thakkar v. State of DelhiRelied on¶3
Jagdish Thakkar v. State of Delhi, 1993 Criminal Court Judgments 103
Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶6
Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 812
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajiv Kawatra
State of Haryana
Seema
Nar Sham Sanghi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
