Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1468 (PNJ)

Lakshveer v. State of Haryana

2012-10-12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Lakshveer, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.245 dated 23.3.2012 at Police Station Sadar, Hisar, District Hisar for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323, 354, 377, 509, 120-B read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of matrimonial dispute. He has further submitted that there have been two lists of dowry articles out of which the first list (Annexure P5) is handwritten and all the dowry articles mentioned therein have been returned. According to him, the second list of dowry articles is a computer generated list and the same does not bear the signatures of any one except Nisha, the complainant. He has submitted that as stated earlier, the allegations attracting the offence punishable under sections 354, 376, 377, 506 and 509 read with section 120-B IPC have been dropped. According to him, there is no assertion in the FIR showing that cruelty meted out to Nisha was of the nature as to drive her to the stage of committing suicide and therefore, offence punishable under section 498-A IPC is not attracted to the facts of this case. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Nisha had been talking on facebook with her paramour and was planning to eliminate the petitioner. In this regard, he drew my attention to some documents down-loaded from the facebook. He has further submitted that the conversation between the petitioner and Nisha which were shown to the police is also given in the petition. According to him, Nisha had dispatched four packages of dowry articles from Tezpur (Assam), the place of posting of the petitioner to the address of her father. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to a courier receipt (Annexure P7). He has further submitted that no gold ornament or other article of dowry is left to be recovered from the petitioner and there is no question of the petitioner paying Rs.15.00 lakhs in lieu of the gold ornaments. According to him, such like condition cannot be imposed in a bail order as has been held by Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Amarjit Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2009) 13 SCC 769. 4. According to him, such like condition cannot be imposed in a bail order as has been held by Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Amarjit Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2009) 13 SCC 769. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the complainant has submitted that after agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs as price of the ornaments left unreturned to the complainant, it cannot be argued on behalf of the petitioner that no ornament is left to be recovered from him. According to him, in view of the order dated 25.7.2012, the petitioner cannot be heard saying that no gold ornament is left to be recovered in this case. 5. Learned senior counsel for the complainant has submitted that during the course of arguments in this case, to avoid the objection raised regarding non return of the gold ornaments, it was agreed by learned senior counsel for the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs as approximate cost of 550 gms of gold. According to him, after the agreement, the petitioner could not be allowed to back out of the same. He has further submitted that after passing of this order, the petitioner went to Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India by way of a petition for Special Leave to Appeal where the SLP was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move this court itself for claiming that he never agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs as a condition for the grant of bail. According to him, the circumstances highlighted with reference to facebook and other conversations can be demolished by arguments but this is not the stage for the same. According to him, it would be examined by the trial court. On the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Amarjit Singh’s case (supra), learned senior counsel for the complainant has submitted that Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India did not lay down that any and every undertaking given by a party could be backed out. According to him, the petitioner moreover, did not seek the remedy before this court for which liberty was granted by Hon‘ble Supreme Court to him. 6. The document on the record is a few line conversation on facebook from which learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn far reaching conclusions. According to him, the petitioner moreover, did not seek the remedy before this court for which liberty was granted by Hon‘ble Supreme Court to him. 6. The document on the record is a few line conversation on facebook from which learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn far reaching conclusions. It is rightly said by learned senior counsel for the complainant that this aspect would have to be considered by learned trial court. The conversation brought to the notice of the police between the petitioner and the complainant can also be commented upon in similar manner. However, the said conversation, if taken as SMSs, that can be given a thoughtful consideration. However, it cannot be believed that one party would utter a sentence say at 8.47 AM and its reply would come at 8.50 AM. All the conversation is mentioned by giving the time of utterance of the sentences. It starts at 8.15 AM and ends at 12.53 PM. It shows that it had lasted for more than 4-1/2 hours. However, the document on the record shows that the duration of the conversation was 57 minutes 46 seconds. So the authenticity of this conversation would have to be examined at the trial. The trial court would also examine as to what inference could be drawn from this conversation if it is found to have taken place between the complainant and the petitioner. 7. It is a case where the complainant levelled allegations attracting the offences punishable under sections 354, 376, 377, 506 and 509 read with section 120-B IPC. Those allegations are claimed to have been dropped by the police. Learned senior counsel for the complainant has submitted that those offences have been dropped by the police unreasonably. It was agreed between the parties that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs to settle the objection raised on the side of the complainant against the plea of bail claiming that gold ornaments weighing 550 gms. were yet to be recovered. After clearly agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs as price of the gold ornaments, the petitioner tried to back out of this agreement by challenging this order before Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India. were yet to be recovered. After clearly agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs as price of the gold ornaments, the petitioner tried to back out of this agreement by challenging this order before Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India. He did not avail the liberty granted to him by Hon‘ble Supreme Court claiming that the amount was not agreed to be paid as price of the gold ornaments, but was agreed to be paid to facilitate parting of ways between the parties. 8. The facts of the case before me can be clearly distinguished from the facts in Amarjit Singh’s case (supra) where bail was granted subject to deposit of Rs.15.00 lakhs in the form of FDR in the name of trial court. Here, the objection to the grant of bail on the plea that gold ornaments were yet to be recovered was sought to be met by paying Rs.15.00 lakhs to the complainant. 9. Looking to the facts of this case, in the background of the submissions noticed above, I do not find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.