Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a dowry-harassment case filed by his wife. Disputes existed over allegations of adultery and mutual complaints. Denied bail as grounds were insufficient.
Petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed; right to seek regular bail preserved.
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-M-24112-2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-24112-2012 (O&M). Date of decision: January 30, 2013.
Naveen Sheokeen
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
PRESENT Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG., Haryana.
Mr.S.S.Goripuria, Advocate, for the complainant.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of his wife Anu alleging that the petitioner and his family members had maltreated her and retained her dowry articles.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the FIR has been registered as a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by him on the basis of adultery. It is also contended that the petitioner has got recorded a C.D. which is part of the matrimonial proceedings reflecting the misconduct of the complainant Anu.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the police file as well as the allegations levelled by the complainant and the petitioner against each other.
Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that when the matter was sent to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre,
1
CRM-M-24112-2012 (O&M)
the complainant-respondent failed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
No doubt the respondent herself did not appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre but she was represented by her counsel Sh.Balraj Singh. A perusal of the divorce petition filed by the petitioner in the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini, indicates that the petitioner has levelled allegations of adultery against the complainant-wife alleging that she had indulged into the immoral activity with none else but her cousin brother. He has impleaded his cousin brother as respondent No.2 who is likely to support the petitioner making the complaint worthless and in placing her in difficult situation to defend the impossible plea taken by the petitioner. The petitioner has himself got allegations of impotency by attributing discussions to the complainant. It is pre mature, at this stage, to form an opinion whether the allegations against the complainant of adultery are true or the petitioner is trying to be oversmart to involve the complainant in matrimonial litigation.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and his family members had been sending complaints to the police authorities for their protection apprehending that they would be falsely implicated. No comments can be given on the said circumstances as it appears that the petitioner and his family members had from the very beginning been creating defence to ridicule the complainant.
No ground is made out to grant the concession of
pre-arrest bail.
Dismissed.
Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek concession of regular bail.
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in a matrimonial dispute alleging dowry harassment.
Whether the unavailability of the complainant at the Mediation and Conciliation Centre satisfies the requirements for granting bail.
Naveen Sheokeen
State of Haryana
Anu
M.M.S. BEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
