Shashwat v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- 05.09.2024 Shashwat

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Aditya Verma, Advocate with Mr. Shivam Grover, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Aakanksha Pal, Advocate for complainant-respondent No. 2.

*** SUMEET GOEL , J.

(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 195 dated 31.05.2024, registered for offences under Sections 323/406/498-A/506 of the IPC, at Police Station Ambala City, Haryana.

2.

On 31.07.2024, the following order was passed:- Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset submits that, due to inadvertence, the complainant could not be impleaded as a party-respondent in this case. On his oral request, complainant i.e. Jyoti d/o Rati Ram, H. No.49, Ram Nagar, Ambala City is impleaded as party-respondent No.2.

Registry is directed to carry out the requisite correction in the memo of parties.

Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.195 dated 31.05.2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 323/406/498-A/506 of IPC at Police Station Ambala City, Haryana; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.

Inter alia contends that the FIR in question is a result of matrimonial discord between the petitioner and complainant-wife; petitioner is willing to return all the dowry articles/istridhan in his possession to the complainant; petitioner is ready for an amicable settlement as well & petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate therein in accordance with law. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the dicta of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2014 AIR (SCW) 3930, and reiterated in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 3610.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

Adjourned to 29.08.2024.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 06.08.2024 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."

On 29.08.2024, the following order was passed:-

Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate has appeared and filed power of attorney on behalf of the complainant. The same is taken on record.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Pallo Devi, submits that the petitioner has joined investigation and he has also handed over a demand draft of Rs.6 lacs along with certain dowry articles to be given to the complainant. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that on account of a mis-understanding, the complainant did not come forward to receive the said demand draft and dowry articles.

In the interest of justice, hearing is deferred to 05.09.2024. The petitioner is directed to re-join investigation before the concerned Investigating Officer in the concerned police station on 31.08.2024 at 11 a.m. and co-operate therein in accordance with law.

The Investigating Officer of the case is directed to hand over to the complainant the above referred demand draft of Rs. 6 lacs and the dowry articles earlier produced by the petitioner in accordance with law.

Interim order to continue."

3.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Pallo, has stated that pursuant to the order dated 31.07.2024, 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. 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 anothe r", 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-dhan. 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 above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 31.07.2024 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) BNSS of 2023. 9.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be interpreted as granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined 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 482(2) BNSS of 2023 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. 12.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 05.09.2024 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No