Arshjot Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-49185-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.8.2019 Arshjot Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by ASI Chamkaur Singh.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.0202 dated 9.9.2018 at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot, Punjab under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, Advocate for Mr. Amaninder Singh Sekhon, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant and has filed Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Paramjeet Kaur, wherein it has been alleged that her marriage to the petitioner Arshjot Singh was solmnized on 25.12.2016 and huge articles of dowry and gifts including jewellery were given at the time of marriage. It is alleged that the complainant's husband and other members of his family were, however, not Pankaj Kakkar 2019.08.21 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-49185-2018 (O&M) happy and used to harass her for bringing more dowry and used to give taunts and forced the complainant, her mother and brother to make down payment of `1.80 lacs for purchase of a Swift car. Subsequently they started raising demand of another amount of `1.5 lacs. The accused are also alleged to have made another demand of `5 lacs subsequently. The accused are also alleged to have given beatings to the complainant and who was ultimately thrown out of her matrimonial home.

Pursuant to interim directions issued by this Court, the petitioner is stated to have joined investigation.

The learned State counsel, while opposing the petition, has submitted that some of the articles of jewellery are yet to be recovered and that in these circumstances, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and while noticing that it is basically a case arising out of matrimonial discord, to my mind, custodial interrogation is not warranted. The petition, as such, is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 2.11.2018 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands accepted accordingly. 21.8.2019 (Gurvinder Singh Gill) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Pankaj Kakkar 2019.08.21 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document