In a criminal miscellaneous application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 498-A IPC, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana rejected the plea. The Court found custodial interrogation necessary due to serious allegations of dowry demand and torture, dismissing the petitioner's claim of a false FIR.
Application for anticipatory 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- 35062 of 2012(O&M)
----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 35062 of 2012 Date of decision. 29.01.2013
Kuldeep Singh
....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr.H.S. Jugait,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Crl. Misc. No.66841 of 2012
Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No.M-35062 of 2012
Kuldeep Singh, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 138 dated 03.08.2012 at Police Station Morinda, District Roop Nagar, for an offence punishable under section 498-A IPC.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 35062 of 2012(O&M)
----2--
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in Army. According to him, he got the complainant admitted in the college. According to him, false FIR has been got registered claiming that sarpanch had rescued her while she was being beaten. According to him, sarpanch has given his affidavit to the effect that nothing such had happened in his presence. He has further submitted that the complainant is not willing to live with the petitioner and that her mother is creating problems in her matrimonial life.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of demand of dowry. According to him, the allegations of torture and beating are specifically there on the part of the petitioner after taking liquor.
The sarpanch in whose presence the complainant claimed the petitioner to have beaten her is a resident of the village of the petitioner. It is possible that he might have been won over by the petitioner being a co-villager and on account of the same he may have given his affidavit. It can not be believed that she had named the sarpanch as a witness after conniving with him. The sarpanch who might have connived with the complainant would not have later on sided with the petitioner. There are specific allegations of demand of dowry and harassment of the complainant at the hands of the petitioner. Mere fact that the petitioner got the complainant admitted
Crl. Misc. No. M- 35062 of 2012(O&M)
----3--
in some college for improvement of her educational qualification would not rule out the possibility of her harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. Moreover there is nothing on the record to show that the complainant took admission in the college for improvement of her educational qualification at the instance or expenses of the petitioner.
Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I find custodial interrogation of the petitioner to be necessary for investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner can not be held entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
January 29, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case of alleged dowry demand and harassment.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary for investigation of the allegations.
Whether the petitioner's claim of false FIR and lack of victim cooperation warrants bail.
Kuldeep Singh
The State of Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
