Saurav Kalra v. State Of Punjab And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- 26.02.2024 Saurav Kalra
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. *** SUMEET GOEL , J.
(Oral) 1.
This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in GD No. 35 dated 23.12.2022 registered for offences under Sections 406,498-A,323,506 of IPC, at Police Station Dugri, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana in FIR No. 143 dated 07.10.2022, registered for offences under Sections 323,341,506,149 IPC, at Police Station City Dugri, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.
2.
On 24.04.2023, the following order was passed:- "Mediation between the parties has failed.
Adjourned to 17.05.2023.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating officer, and in the event of arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of Arresting
Officer. The petitioner shall also abode by the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
To be heard along with CRM-M-5970-2023"
3.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Surjeet Singh, has stated that pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2023, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation. However, learned State counsel as also the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 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 petitioner has submitted that no dowry articles/Istridhan are in possession of the petitioner and, in fact, the entire dowry articles/Istridhan is with the aggrieved-wife. 5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the paper book.
6.
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 anothe r", relevant whereof reads as under:
"11.
As a sequel to the above said discussion, the following principles of law emerge:- (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." 7.
Non-recovery of dowry articles/Istridhan 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/Istridhan. The aspect, as to what all are the dowry articles/Istridhan 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 pointed out which may dissuade this Court from confirming the interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8.
In view of above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 24.04.2023 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
9.
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.
10.
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.
11.
Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 12.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 26.02.2024 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No