Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1492 (PNJ)

Baljeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-12-06

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. On the statement of Veena Rani wife of the petitioner herein, F.I.R. No. 91, dated 26.5.2000 has been registered under Sections 493-A, 406 and 120-B I.P.C. at Police Station Sirhind, wherein the following material allegations are found. 2. The complainant was married to petitioner-Baljeet Singh on 14.4.1994 at Sirhind and at the time of the marriage, her parents gave dowry as per the list supplied by the parents of the petitioner. After the marriage, the petitioner and others mentioned in the statement started torturing the complainant, demanding more dowry and used to beat her. The complainants father gave Rs, 40,000/- to petitioner-Baljeet Singh. These persons in conspiracy with each other tortured the complainant. Petitioner s uncle- Gurdial Singh and Bua-Jeeto told the complainant that she should arrange Rs. 50,000/-. Complainants mother-in-law-Satya Devi, Jeeto and Surinder Kaur taunted the complainant demanding Rs. 50,000/-. After some time, the petitioner left the complainant at her parents house at Sirhind. Later on, the petitioner took the complainant with him, but again they started demanding the dowry after some time. The petitioner and others tortured the complainant and turned her out of the matrimonial home with demand for a car. On the instigation of others, the petitioner used to give beatings to the complainant. The complainants golden ornaments and other dowry articles have been retained by her in-laws and some of them might have been sold by them. The petitioner used to given beating to the complainant under the influence of liquor. 3. The petitioners application for bail in anticipation of arrest was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fetehgarh Sahab. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 Cr. P.C. for bail in anticipation of arrest. 4. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and pursued the records on file. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations in the complaint are not specific, but are general and vague. According to him the complainant was not cordial towards the petitioner or the other family members, but always threatened the petitioner and his family members that they will be involved in a false case. According to the petitioner, in the year 1998, the complainant threatened to immolate herself and left the matrimonial home. According to him the complainant was not cordial towards the petitioner or the other family members, but always threatened the petitioner and his family members that they will be involved in a false case. According to the petitioner, in the year 1998, the complainant threatened to immolate herself and left the matrimonial home. The petitioner also claims that his father had lodged the complaint with the S.H.O., Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh regarding this. The petitioner also contends that when the petitioner left the matrimonial home she took all the jewels, and that after the lodging of the F.I.R., the police has recovered certain dowry articles from his house, while the other articles are lying with the family of the petitioner and, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail. But this is being opposed by the learned counsel for the State and the complainant on the ground that there is allegations against the petitioner and that the petitioner and others had threatened the complainant to withdraw the cases on which the complainant has also lodged a report dated 4.9.2000 i.e., annexure R-2. But, the petitioner has filed an affidavit denying these allegations made in annexure R-2. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made against the petitioner are vague, general and unspecific. He contends that the petitioner has admittedly joined investigation. He also points out that some of the dowry articles have been recovered from the house of the petitioner vide memo annexure P-2. Pointing out these factors, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no need for keeping the petitioner in custody. Of course, the learned counsel for the complainant contends that the complainant was threatened by the petitioner and others to withdraw the complaint made against the petitioner, but the petitioner has denied the same in his affidavit. 7. In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the interim bail already granted to the petitioner can be confirmed. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, the petitioner is ordered to be re- leased on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, the petitioner is ordered to be re- leased on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, the petitioner shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr. P.C.