High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/8029/2020dismissed

Ravi Khan v. State Of Punjab

2020-10-08Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision:8.10.2020 RAVI KHAN .....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, AAG, Punjab.

(Proceedings conducted through video conferencing). **** GURVINDER SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.35 dated 30.3.2019 under Sections 306, 304-B, 120-B, 316 IPC at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala.

2. The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Saudagar Khan wherein it is alleged that his daughter namely Salma Begam was married to Ravi Khan about 6 months back and that shortly after marriage i.e. after about 2-3 months of marriage, her in-laws as well as her husband Ravi Khan and her husband's mother Jawaida Begam and sister-in-law Sareeya Begam started harassing and humiliating complainant's daughter in order to press upon their demand of more dowry and also gave beatings to her. It is alleged that Sareeya Begam sister-in-law of complainant's daughter

( 2 ) Salma Begam had come to her parental home on account of birth of child and was residing with them. It is alleged that on 29.3.2019 complainant's son-in-law i.e. Ravi Khan i.e. the petitioner called complainant's brother on telephone and told him that he was bringing Salma Begam (deceased) to her parental house and that she may be picked up from Government bus stand. Upon receipt of said telephone message, complainant's nephew Amir Khan went to Government bus stand and picked up complainant's daughter. Upon arriving home complainant's daughter informed that her sister-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband had given beatings to her a day back in order to press upon demand of dowry and had told her to return back only after demand is fulfilled.

It is alleged that the complainant's daughter was very upset and stated that it was better if she ended her life. The complainant however try to pacify her as her daughter was 3 months' pregnant. It is alleged that the accused however again made a phone call raising their demands. It is alleged that at about 3:00 p.m. when the complainant and his son were away for work, then her daughter ended her life by hanging herself in the fodder room.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that even as per FIR it is apparent that the deceased had committed suicide in her parental home and not in the house of the petitioner so as to draw any inference against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner in any case deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity since other coaccused has already been granted bail.

4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that the

( 3 ) petitioner being husband of the deceased is the prime accused and since there are specific and categoric allegations against him, no case for grant of bail is made out.

5. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6. Undisputedly, the petitioner, who is husband, would have great responsibility so as to ensure that his wife lives in a cordial atmosphere. However in the present case the deceased committed suicide within one year of marriage. The fact that there are allegations regarding maltreatment of the deceased and that she committed suicide on the very next day when she returned to parental home and also the factum of the timing of the said incident when her sister-in-law had been staying in her parental home i.e. matrimonial home of the deceased, this Court at this stage, does not find any ground for grant of bail. The petition, as such, is sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

7. It is, however, clarified that none of the observations made above shall be construed to be an expression on merits of the main case. ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 8.10.2020 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No