Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2007 (RAJ)

Ankit Punia v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-19

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This application under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.269/2016 lodged at Mahila Police Station, Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 354, 377, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner have submitted that allegations of harassment for dowry levelled in the FIR by the complainant are false. It is submitted that the contention of the complainant that at the time of her marriage with the petitioner, her father gave about Rs.1 crore cash in dowry and gold ornaments of lac of rupees is also false because at the time of marriage, no such dowry was given. Learned counsel for the petitioner have also submitted that contention of the complainant of giving a Mahendra XUV 500 vehicle at the time of her engagement and a Maruti Suzuki Ciaz car at the time of marriage is also false. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner as well as the complainant are MBBS Doctors and prior to their marriage, they knew to each other, however later on, after meeting of their parents their marriage was fixed and the same was solemnized in Sri Gangangar on 26.01.2015. Soon after the marriage, the petitioner and the complainant started living at petitioner's parental home at village Panchkosi, Punjab and thereafter shifted to Zirakpur, Punjab and lived together there up to 29.08.2016. The complainant left the house of the petitioner along with her maternal uncle and brother for Sri Gangangar and thereafter never returned. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner visited Sri Ganganagar on 19.10.2016 to take the complainant back but when he reached Sri Gangangar, he came to know that complainant is not at Sri Ganganagar, then he inquired about her whereabouts but nobody informed him about her, then he returned to Zirakpur and tried to get information about the complainant but could not get any information and while apprehending about wrongful confinement of the complainant, he approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dera Bassi, Punjab and filed an application under Section 97 CrPC. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued a search warrant and in pursuant to that, the complainant appeared before him on 08.12.2016 and gave statement that she left Zirakpur on 29.08.2016 along with her maternal uncle and brother as per her own will and at present she is residing with her parents and she is not in any illegal confinement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that it is to be noticed that before the SDM, the complainant did not level any allegation that she left the house because of her harassment for dowry by the petitioner and his parents but soon thereafter, the present FIR was filed by the complainant at Mahila Police Station, Sri Ganganagar on 01.12.2016 levelling false allegations against the petitioner, his parents and other relatives. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner have submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. It is submitted that the allegation of assault, forgery of documents and misappropriation of Stridhan against the petitioner are false. Learned counsel for the petitioner have further submitted that in the FIR, apart from the petitioner, his parents and maternal uncle Avinash have also been made as accused, however, Avinash has already been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, whereas the parents of the petitioner viz. Ashok Kumar and Kamlesh have been granted protection by Hon'ble Supreme Court that they shall not be arrested during investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR against all the accused-persons are more or less similar and in such circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled for benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner have further submitted that the police are bent upon to arrest the petitioner on the pretext that the dowry items (Stridhan) are to be recovered from him, therefore, his arrest is needed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts, in catena of decisions, have categorically held that benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely on the ground that dowry items are to be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner have submitted that as a matter of fact the dowry items are not in possession of the petitioner and all the dowry items including gold ornaments etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner have submitted that as a matter of fact the dowry items are not in possession of the petitioner and all the dowry items including gold ornaments etc. are in possession of the complainant only. 8. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner have prayed that the petitioner may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that the allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR against the petitioner are of serious nature. The petitioner and other accused-persons had harassed the complainant for long time and demanded huge money in dowry. It is also submitted that the complainant in the FIR has mentioned the date and the place, where the dowry was demanded by the petitioner. It is further submitted that from the allegations levelled in the complaint, it is clear that the petitioner had physically assaulted the complainant on many occasions in Zirakpur, Punjab as well as in Sri Ganganagar. It is also submitted that the dowry items were entrusted to the petitioner and his family members at the time of engagement as well as the marriage, which, despite insistence by the police by issuing notice to the petitioner, have not been returned. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant has frankly admitted that the law on this point is very clear that anticipatory bail cannot be denied to an accused in a matrimonial dispute solely on the ground of recovery of dowry items, however, argued that apart from the recovery of dowry items, from the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, it appears that the complainant was constantly harassed by the petitioner for dowry and she was subjected to mental as well as physical harassment for quite long time. It is submitted that the petitioner used to assault the complainant after consuming liquor and those instances are specifically disclosed by the complainant by giving details about the place, date and time. 11. Learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that after filing of the FIR by the complainant, the petitioner and his family members filed several criminal cases against the complainant and her family members in States of Punjab and Rajasthan with the intention to harass and pressurize the complainant. 11. Learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that after filing of the FIR by the complainant, the petitioner and his family members filed several criminal cases against the complainant and her family members in States of Punjab and Rajasthan with the intention to harass and pressurize the complainant. It is submitted that in almost all the criminal cases filed at the instance of the petitioner and his family members against the complainant, the police found no case and in several cases, negative final reports were filed. 12. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR and statements of complainant and other witnesses and looking to the above referred conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail and this anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the case diary. 14. The marriage of the petitioner with the complainant was solemnized on 26.01.2015 at Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. As per the complainant, at the time of her marriage, Rs.1 crore cash was given in dowry besides some moveable property and ornaments. It is also alleged in the complaint that prior to the marriage, on the occasion of engagement ceremony, a car, gold ornaments and other gifts were given to the family of the petitioner. The allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment for the same were elaborated in the FIR, which run in several pages. The allegation of physical assault by the petitioner and other persons named in the FIR has been levelled in detail while mentioning the place, date and time. It is alleged by the complainant that she was physically assaulted by the petitioner at Chandigarh and Dharmshala, Himachal Pradesh, where they had visited in January, 2016 and at Sri Ganganagar thereafter. 15. So far as argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that no cash or any dowry items were given at the time of marriage is concerned, I have gone through the interrogation note of the petitioner recorded on 17.05.2019 by the Investigating Officer. 15. So far as argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that no cash or any dowry items were given at the time of marriage is concerned, I have gone through the interrogation note of the petitioner recorded on 17.05.2019 by the Investigating Officer. During that interrogation, the petitioner revealed that 2-3 days before the marriage, father of the complainant approached him and told that he wants to give Rs.1 crore cash in marriage but as there is slump in the property business and he is not having cash at present, he requested the petitioner and his father to give him Rs.1 crore, so that he could give the same as dowry at the time of marriage. On asking of the father of the complainant, the father of the petitioner gave him Rs.64 lac cash and asked him to give this money at the time of marriage. The petitioner has further submitted that on 26.01.2016, his in-laws gave those Rs.64 lac in a suitcase by declaring that it is Rs.1 crore. The same statements were also given by co-accused Kamlesh Punia and Ashok Punia in their interrogation note dated 04.06.2019. 16. In my opinion, the said explanation offered by the petitioner regarding payment of money in cash as dowry at the time of marriage is not believable. Why a father of a groom will give money to a father of a bride to give it at the time of marriage by declaring that the same is from bride side. 17. Be that as it may, during the course of investigation, the police had collected photographs of engagement as well as of the marriage functions and from those photographs, it can be gathered that huge cash, ornaments and several other items including XUV Car were delivered to the petitioner or his family members at the time of those functions. 18. Apart from that, serious allegations of physical abuse were levelled against the petitioner in the complaint in detail specifying the place, date and time. 19. It is true that co-accused Aswani Kumar, maternal uncle of the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, however, in the complaint, allegations of physical assault and demand of dowry are not against Aswani Kumar. 18. Apart from that, serious allegations of physical abuse were levelled against the petitioner in the complaint in detail specifying the place, date and time. 19. It is true that co-accused Aswani Kumar, maternal uncle of the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, however, in the complaint, allegations of physical assault and demand of dowry are not against Aswani Kumar. It is also true that the parents of the petitioner Ashok Kumar and Kamlesh have also been granted protection by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by issuing a direction that they shall not be arrested during the investigation but the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing from the case of the parents of the petitioner. The petitioner is the husband and it is expected from a husband to protect his wife particularly when it is alleged that the behaviour of his mother and father towards his wife is not proper. 20. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 21. Hence, the bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC is rejected.