Lalit Kumar Gautam v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.03.2024 LALIT KUMAR GAUTAM ....Petitioner V/s STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr.Krishan Daaria, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.
Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.152 dated 14.12.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406/498-A of IPC at Police Station Woman, District Ludhiana. 2.
On 17.01.2022, the following order was passed:- "By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No. 152, dated 14.12.2021, under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Women, Ludhiana (annexed as Annexure P-1).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in question emanates from a dispute between the petitioner and his wife i.e. the complainant on account of the petitioner being a pet lover and having kept 15 dogs and 06 cats in his house. Learned counsel further submits that all other allegations of subjecting the complainant to mental cruelty were totally fabricated and without any substance.
-2Notice of motion for 23.05.2022.
Meanwhile, petitioner is directed to join investigation and appear before the investigating agency as and when called upon to do so. In the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing bonds bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C." Mediation proceedings between the parties have failed. 3.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Roop Singh, has stated that pursuant to the order dated 17.01.2022, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation. However, learned State counsel as also the learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that only partial recovery of dowry articles has been effected and remaining dowry articles are yet to be recovered. 4.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the alleagations made against the petitioner are very serious in nature. 5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no dowry articles/Istri-dhan are in possession of the petitioner and, in fact, the entire dowry articles/Istri-dhan is with the aggrieved-wife. 6.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the paper book.
7.
It will be apposite to refer to a judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed by this Court in CRM-M-60647-2023 titled as "Varun Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and another", relevant whereof reads as under: "11. As a sequel to the above said discussion, the following principle of law emerge :-
-3- (I) Non-recovery of dowry articles/Istri-dhan cannot ordinarily be a ground, by itself, for declining a plea for grant of anticipatory bail to the husband or his relatives.
(II) The conduct of an accused, is indeed, a relevant factor for consideration of a plea for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of such accused. Such conduct would also include the cooperation, in accordance with law, extended by such accused for recovery of dowry articles/Istri-dhan. Whether or not such cooperation was extended by the accused would be ascertainable from the facts and circumstances of a given case.
(III) In exceptional cases, if the peculiar and/or accentuating facts/circumstances of the case so warrant, a Court would be well within its discretion to pass a direction to the petitioner- accused to deposit in Court or remit to the complainant-wife an appropriate amount towards the Istri-dhan/dowry articles. Needless to state herein that it is neither possible nor desirable to enumerate a set of guidelines in this regard & a Court would have to exercise its judicial discretion in this regard in the facts and circumstances of a given case."
8.
Non-recovery of dowry articles/Istri-dhan in entirety thereof cannot, by itself, be a cause for rejection of the present plea for anticipatory bail by the petitioner especially when the State does not require custodial interrogation of petitioner on any other count except for effecting recovery of remaining dowry articles/Istri-dhan. The aspect, as to what all are the dowry articles/Istri-dhan in question in the present case & whether the entire dowry articles have been recovered or not, shall be essentially gone into during the course of trial. No accentuating circumstances are decipherable, from the factual matrix of the present case, so as to direct the petitioner to deposit any amount towards the alleged non-recovery of complete dowry articles. No such misconduct by the petitioner has been
-4pointed out which may dissuade this Court from confirming the interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
9.
In view of above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 17.01.2022 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 10.
This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be interpreted as granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 11.
Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 or upon showing any other sufficient cause.
12.
Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 13.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE March 05, 2024 poonam Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No