Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 780 (PNJ)

Rajiv v. State of Punjab

2013-07-01

Naresh Kumar Sanghi

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:- Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, Rajiv, Simran Kaur and Baljinder Kaur, who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324, 406, 498-A and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.34, dated 07.06.2012, registered at Police Station, Balongi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No.1-Rajiv is the brother-in-law (nandoi) while petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely, Simran Kaur and Baljinder Kaur, are the married sisters-in-law (nanad) of the complainant. To make the things clear, it is apposite to mention that petitioner No.3- Baljinder Kaur though married but is divorcee and residing with her co-accused. The main accused, i.e husband of the complainant, was arrested and granted bail by the court below vide order dated 23.09.2012. The recoveries have already been effected from the husband of the complainant. He further contends that during the pendency of the petition for grant of anticipatory bail, arrest of the petitioners was stayed and they did join the investigation. He also submits that just to widen the array of the accused, the petitioners have been named by the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Kashmiri Lal, very fairly concedes that the petitioners have joined the investigation but their custodial interrogation is required so that dowry articles may be recovered from them. However, he concedes the fact that the husband of the complainant was arrested and granted regular bail by the court below and certain articles were recovered from him. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has also vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the premise that in spite of their joining investigation, they have failed to get recover the dowry articles. He also contends that the dowry worth Rs. 10,00,000/- has to be recovered from the petitioners. 5. Heard. 6. The petitioners are the brother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the complainant. The husband has already been arrested and granted bail by the court below. As many as six persons have been arrayed as accused. The marriages of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely, Simran Kaur and Baljinder Kaur, were solemnized much prior to the marriage of the complainant. 5. Heard. 6. The petitioners are the brother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the complainant. The husband has already been arrested and granted bail by the court below. As many as six persons have been arrayed as accused. The marriages of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely, Simran Kaur and Baljinder Kaur, were solemnized much prior to the marriage of the complainant. During the pendency of the petition for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Court of Session, the petitioners were granted ad-interim anticipatory bail and they did join the investigation. Though ultimately their said petition was dismissed. During the pendency of the present petition, the arrest of the petitioners were stayed by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2012. As per the learned counsel for the State, the petitioners did join the investigation in compliance of the said order. The provisions contained in Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, have not been enacted to get the alleged dowry articles recovered. A reference can be made to Jagdish Thakkar vs. State of Delhi, 1993 Criminal Court Judgments 103, and Uday Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2001(1) RCR(Criminal) 354 (P&H) in this regard. 7. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the relation of the petitioners with the husband of the complainant, the present petition deserves acceptance and the same is hereby allowed. 8. In the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. 9. The petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so. They shall also abide by the conditions laid down in Section 438(2), Cr.P.C. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ———————————