Allowed

Rohit Barad v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Dec 2017CRM-M/22678/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving dowry harassment allegations. The wife respondent, though served, did not appear. The court directed the petitioner to join the investigation and comply with bail conditions, clarifying that the order does not comment on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail; directed to join investigation by 26.12.2017 and comply with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Rohit Barad Vs State of Haryana — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM No.M-22678 of 2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M- 22678 of 2017(O&M) Date of Decision: December 21 , 2017.

¶5

Rohit Barad

¶6

...... PETITIONER (s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and another ...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

¶10

Present: Mr. Jitender Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Sanjay K.Saini, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

None for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? *****

¶17

LISA GILL, J.

¶18

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.232 dated 29.10.2016 under Sections 498A/506/406 IPC, registered at Police Station Women, Sector 51, District Gurgaon.

¶19

It is submitted that marriage between the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.2 was performed as per their wishes. It was admittedly a love marriage performed at a temple on 30.10.2009. It is further submitted that there is no question of any demand of dowry neither is any such allegation emerging from the FIR in question. Moreover, the petitioner made Omkar Singhvarious efforts for resumption of the matrimonial ties, but the complainant has not 2017.12.21 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CRM No.M-22678 of 2017

¶21

-2-

¶22

come forward. The complainant is stated to be living separately since 2014. The complainant/respondent No.2 has not even come forward to join proceedings in the present case as well, though she was duly served. It is submitted that the petitioner, who is not involved in any other criminal proceedings, has joined investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. He undertakes to face the proceedings and not misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if afforded to him. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition be allowed.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

As per allegations in the FIR, marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was solemnized on 30.10.2009. A daughter was born out of this wedlock on 23.12.2011. It is alleged that the petitioner was a drunkard and addicted to gambling. Various allegations have been raised regarding meting out of ill-treatment and harassment to the complainant/respondent No.2. It is mentioned in the FIR that the complainant ultimately started living separately in a rented accommodation as she did not wish to be a burden on her parents as well.

¶25

It is noticed that the complainant was duly impleaded as respondent No.2 in this petition. It was directed that notice be issued to her on deposit of a sum of `25,000/- before the Registry of this Court to be paid as litigation expenses to the complainant. The said amount was deposited. Respondent No.2 has been duly served.

¶26

It is informed by learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Suresh Kumar, that intimation was duly conveyed to respondent No.2 through the concerned police station on 07.10.2017 in respect to the pendency of the present petition. However, respondent No.2 despite service and intimation, Omkar Singhhas chosen not to appear before this Court. 2017.12.21 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CRM No.M-22678 of 2017

¶28

-3-

¶29

Learned counsel for the State verifies that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts before the Court, if released on bail.

¶30

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed.

¶31

Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 26.12.2017 at 11.00 a.m. to join investigation at the first instance and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Agency. Petitioner shall fully cooperate in the investigation of this case. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/ Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶32

It is directed that the amount of `25,000/- lying deposited with Registry of this Court shall be remitted to respondent No.2 qua adequate proof of identity, in case she makes a necessary application.

¶33

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

¶34

( LISA GILL ) December 21 , 2017. JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶35

Omkar Singh 2017.12.21 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Rohit Barad v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Barad v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Kumar Phulia & Others Vs State of Haryana & Another

Rakesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana

Shashi Kumar Phulia and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Balwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Sukhjeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.