High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/25620/2015dismissed

Sushil Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2015-08-17Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain2 pages

KAPIL 2015.08.19 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-25620-2015 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M-25620-2015 Date of Decision:17.08.2015 Sushil Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Punjab.

***** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.188 dated 21.12.2014 under Sections 498-A , 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station City-1, Abohar.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that petitioner got married to the complainant on 28.11.2000. Out of the said wedlock, parties were blessed with two children. The case of the complainant is that sufficient Ishtridhan had been given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. However, petitioner and his family members started harassing the

KAPIL 2015.08.19 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-25620-2015 complainant on account of insufficiency of dowry and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. Due to this reason, complainant was given beatings by the petitioner. It is further the case of the complainant that the petitioner was of bad character and has been sexually harassing her children. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case as he had filed a petition against the complainant seeking decree of divorce. FIR in question had been lodged after 15 years of the marriage of the parties.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and stated that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogatioin. Statements of the children were also recorded during investigation.

Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. Dismissed.

August 17, 2015 (SABINA) kapil JUDGE