Arshdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.30507 of 2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.30507 of 2024 Date of decision : 12.8.2024 Arshdeep Singh .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vishavjeet Singh Rishi, Advocate and Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab Mr. J.S. Moudgill, Advocate, for the complainant --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.106 dated 11.10.2023, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Maloud, District Khanna.

2.

On 25.6.2024, the following order was passed:- Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that present is a case of mistrust between husband & wife and the petitioner is now ready to settle the matter with the complainant-wife.

Notice of motion for 12.08.2024.

Let the parties appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 02.07.2024.

In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join investigation before the Investigating Officer as and when called. In the event of his arrest, the

CRM-M No.30507 of 2024 -2Arresting Officer would admit him to interim bail, till the next date of hearing, on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioner is directed to abide by all the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

3.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurmeet Singh, has stated that pursuant to the order dated 25.6.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation. However, learned State counsel as also the learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that only partial recovery of dowry articles has been effected and remaining dowry articles are yet to be recovered and the mediation proceedings initiated between the parties have not fructified.

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 another", 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-

CRM-M No.30507 of 2024 -3dhan. 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 the above, the interim order dated 25.6.2024, 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 read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be

CRM-M No.30507 of 2024 -4confined 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. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 12.8.2024 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No