Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1208 (PNJ)

Jagsir Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-09-14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of complainant-respondent No.2 Sukhwinder Kaur (for brevity “the complainant”) was solemnized with petitioner Jagsir Singh on 9.12.2007, according to Sikh rites & ceremonies at Samana. Her father was stated to have given sufficient dowry articles at the time of her marriage beyond his capacity. The complainant claimed that the petitioner demanded Rs.2.5 lacs in cash and one motor cycle. On her refusal, he kept her in a room and gave beatings, harassed & tortured her. 2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, according to the complainant that the petitioner-accused taunted, harassed, abused, tortured and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner, by virtue of FIR No.7 dated 13.1.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station Women, Patiala, in the manner depicted here-in-above. 3. Having exercised his right and failed in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition in this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail in the indicated case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 4. Notice of the petition was given to the State. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this respect. 6. Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that, inter-alia direct and very serious allegations are assigned in the FIR to the petitioner-husband that he repeatedly taunted, abused, harassed, tortured and demanded Rs.2.5 lacs in cash and a motorcycle from the complainant. He was not satisfied with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. 7. As is evident from the record that, inter-alia direct and very serious allegations are assigned in the FIR to the petitioner-husband that he repeatedly taunted, abused, harassed, tortured and demanded Rs.2.5 lacs in cash and a motorcycle from the complainant. He was not satisfied with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. The complainant was kept in a room, tortured and treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles by the petitioner. 8. The next celebrated contention of learned counsel that as there is no reliable material on record to prove the misappropriation of, and specific demand of dowry articles, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, lacks merit as well. That stage of proving the misappropriation and demand of dowry articles by the husband, has not yet reached. At the time of consideration of the grant of anticipatory bail or otherwise, only allegations and relatable material have to be kept in focus at this initial stage of investigation. 9. As indicated here-in-above, very serious and direct allegations of torture and cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles are assigned to the petitioner (husband). Although he is stated to have joined the investigation, but still, he has refused to hand over the dowry articles. To me, if he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of dowry articles/case property is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of case property from the main accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations of commission of indicated offences and that the recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected, to me, the petitioner is not at all entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition filed by petitioner-husband is hereby dismissed as such. 11. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. ---------0.B.S.0------------