Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1411 (PNJ)

Kaushik Balasubramaniam v. State of Punjab

2012-10-05

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The epitome of the facts and material, which requires to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by main accused (husband) and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of complainant-respondent No.2 Rashim Kaushik (for brevity “the complainant”) was solemnized with petitioner Kaushik Balasubramaniam on 24.1.2007, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies at Ludhiana. An amount of approximately Rs. 15 lacs was stated to have been spent and gold ornaments, sufficient dowry articles, mentioned in Annexure A attached with the FIR, were given by her parents, as per the demand of the accused at the time of solemnization of marriage. The articles were entrusted to the accused. It was claimed that they have again demanded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to purchase the furniture from Bangalore, which was given to the accused by the parents of the complainant. According to the complainant that in the month of April, 2007, the accused again asked her to bring Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of Honda Activa Scooter and one laptop. The complainant asked and her parents gave the amount to the accused to purchase the scooter as well as laptop. They continued demanding cash and dowry articles from the complainant and on her refusal, they started harassing, taunting her and demanded a luxury car for the petitioner as well. 2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail contained in the FIR, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioner-accused (husband) and other co-accused misappropriated her dowry articles, repeatedly demanded cash, taunted, harassed 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-accused (husband) and his parents, by way of FIR No.30 dated 4.5.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana, in the manner depicted here-inabove. 3. Having exercised and lost his right in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has now 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. 3. Having exercised and lost his right in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has now 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 & status report submitted by Assistant Commissioner of Police (West), Ludhiana, with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context. 6. Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner-accused has been falsely implicated, so, he is entitled to the benefit 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 along with his other co-accused misappropriated the dowry articles, repeatedly taunted, harassed, tortured and demanded Rs.2 lacs in cash, Activa Honda Scooter, laptop and a luxury car from the complainant. He was not satisfied with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. The complainant was tortured and treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles by the petitioner. 8. Sequelly, 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. 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. As per the status report, the gold ornaments, mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ given to the petitioner-accused by the parents of complainant, as per the statements (Annexures R1 & R2) and receipts (Annexures R3 & R4) would corroborate the case of complainant that the dowry articles and gold ornaments are yet to be recovered from the petitioner-husband. 10. The mere fact that the parents-in-law of complainant have been allowed the concession of anticipatory bail, ipso facto, is not a ground to grant the same benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is the main accused and husband of the complainant. To me, if he is allowed the concession 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 in-road 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. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations of commission of indicated offences and the fact that the recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected, to my mind, the petitioner-husband is not at all entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. 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. 12. 11. 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. 12. 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------------