Saurav Jain v. State Of Haryana And Another
!"
# #$%& '
"
"(" ) * +,
)
! "
" #$ %"&' ! ( ))))) -) 1.
Petitioner Saurav Jain has filed petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.758 dated 29.11.2024, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A & 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kundli, District Sonipat. 2.
As per facts of the case, Mega Jain filed written complaint against her husband Saurav Jain, mother-in-law Mala Jain, father-in-law Sunil Jain and sister-in-law Payal Jain regarding maltreatment on account of demand of dowry. She stated that her husband started beating her on account of demand of dowry for the last few years. Six months ago, she had a flat in TDI City, Kundli in her name which was sold by her husband by creating pressure on her. Her husband took away all her jewellery given by her parents worth Rs.1 crore. At the time of her marriage, her father had given Rs.1.5 crore in cash to her in-laws. Even, thereafter she visited her parental
house and brought money. Finally, when she refused to bring money maltreatment started. Her husband is having illicit relations with another woman. There is a policy of Rs.1.3 crore in which her husband is the nominee. She was turned out of the house several times. With these allegations, matter was enquired and present FIR was registered. 3.
Learned counsel for petitioner argued that all allegations levelled against him are false. The flat in question was sold with her consent. It was the complainant who had received money in her account. She is living in the same flat along with his father. She is pressurizing her father to transfer the property in her name and in the name of her children. At present her father is unwell whereas he along with his mother have moved outside the house. He is ready to join the investigation as and when required. Therefore, his anticipatory bail petition may be allowed. 4.
Bail petition is opposed by learned counsel representing State assisted by learned counsel for complainant. It is pointed out that petitioner has joined the investigation on 16.02.2025. He got recovered Swift car and documents consisting of Passport, Pan Card, Aadhar Card, Educational Certificates, LIC and Tata Insurance Policy and the same were handed over to the complainant under proper receipt. However, the jewellery of the complainant and cash amount is yet to be recovered. Learned counsel representing the complainant pointed out that the complainant is residing in her parental house along with her child at Sonipat. 5.
I have considered the aforesaid factual position. It is not disputed that the flat owned by the complainant was sold by the husband. It is pointed out that huge money was given by the parents of complainant from
* time to time. All her money and gold jewellery has been misappropriated by the husband and not even a single article has been recovered. So far as the stand taken by the petitioner that the complainant is residing in the matrimonial home along with father-in-law is also denied by the counsel for complainant and it is clarified that she is living in the parental house at Sonipat. Matter requires thorough investigation. Partial recovery is effected consisting of documents, policies and one Swift car. To complete the investigation, recovery of dowry articles is material. In the light of aforesaid factual position, I do not find a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and the same is accordingly declined. 6.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.
. / + %,- .-( + /' .-(