The High Court allowed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. holding that pending recovery of dowry items without supporting bills cannot be a sole ground to deny bail.
Interim order dated 03.05.2019 made absolute; petitioner directed to join investigation and abide by Section 438(2) terms.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-9772 of 2019 Date of Decision: 16.10.2019
Gagandeep Bhargav
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
Present:Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab. *****
HARI PAL VERMA, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.07 dated 23.01.2019 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sohan Lal, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation but recovery of some gold jewellery i.e. 1 bracelet and 1 ear ring is yet to be made in the case. He further submits that the complainant has not produced the bills in support of the jewellery.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
ASHWANI KUMAR 2019.10.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
Criminal Misc. No. M-9772 of 2019
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma and
others Versus State of U.P. and another 2017(3) RCR (Criminal) 836 has held that recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of the wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Similar view has also been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Versus Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 226 .
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and considering the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation and the complainant has not produced any bills in support of the jewellery to be recovered, this Court finds that anticipatory bail cannot be declined solely on the ground that recovery is yet to be effected.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the interim order dated 03.05.2019 is made absolute.
However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when directed by the investigating agency and shall abide by the terms and conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
October 16, 2019 ( HARI PAL VERMA ) AK JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No
ASHWANI KUMAR 2019.10.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether recovery of disputed dowry items pending without corroborative bills precludes granting anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajesh Sharma and others Versus State of U.P. and anotherExplained¶20
Rajesh Sharma and others Versus State of U.P. and another 2017(3) RCR (Criminal) 836
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Versus Union of IndiaReferred¶20
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Versus Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 226
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gagandeep Bhargav
State of Punjab
HARI PAL VERMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
