Raman Kumar And Another v. State Of Haryana And Another
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 23.01.2026 RAMAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
! "!
! #
$
***** AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1.
Petitioners Raman Kumar and Kiran have filed instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.248 dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A, 506, 323, 406, 417 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station Urban Estate, District Hisar.
2.
As per facts of the case, complainant Sonali Sharma filed written complaint against Raman Kumar, father-in-law, Kiran, mother-inlaw, Rishabh husband with the allegations of maltreatment on account of
-2demand of dowry as well as misappropriation of her dowry articles. Complainant Sonali Sharma alleged that her marriage was solemnized with Rishabh on 14.01.2024. Mother of her husband was friend of her mother and proposed marriage of her son with the complainant who was working in New Zealand. On account of their relationship and mutual faith, their marriage was fixed for 14.01.2024. After marriage they had gone to Maldives, on 19.01.2024. Their marriage was not consummated as he stated that he was already undergoing treatment from New Zealand. Her husband went back to New Zealand. Later-on, he disclosed everything to her mother-in-law who suggested not to tell anything to anybody. She stayed in the matrimonial home and when she was to go to New Zealand both her in-laws suggested to get money from her father for the tickets.
Her father had given Rs.5 lacs to accused Nos.1 and 2. After going to New Zealand accused Nos.1 and 2 started harassing her for bringing less dowry. There was demand for cash of Rs.1 crore to buy a flat in New Zealand. Her husband insisted that he was having some medical issue, as a result their marriage was not consummated. During her stay in the matrimonial home, she came across chat of her husband on his Ipad with his friend Shivali Sharma where her husband had told her that he would get rid off his wife by paying 10-15 lacs. Her husband was also talking to his mother to get rid off his wife. Her mother-in-law was also aware of the problem of his son having different sexual preferences. Her husband came to India alone on 21.12.2024. He had stated that he will return back after his nose surgery. On 12.01.
2025, he returned to New Zealand and after taking car from outside he left without disclosing his whereabouts.
-3his whereabouts and also stayed in a refugee camp. Thereafter, she received call from Immigration office to deport her. Her father told her to come back to India immediately. She wanted to stay back to search her husband. Her parents also tried to contact the parents of Rishabh but they stopped attending her calls. Her husband through accused No.1 filed a divorce case and also filed a civil suit. They created false record. Parents of her husband knew that her son was impotent/gay and was unfit for marriage. All her dowry articles are in possession of her mother-in-law. In this way accused persons cheated her and also misappropriated her dowry articles. With these allegations, present FIR has been registered. 3.
Learned counsel representing petitioners pointed out that they are the parents of boy Rishabh. They tried to effect compromise with the complainant. However, the mediation failed. They have also returned the gold ornaments to the police and they are ready to join the investigation as and when required. Therefore, their anticipatory bail petition may be allowed.
4.
Bail petition is opposed by learned counsel representing the complainant. It is pointed out that there are specific serious allegations against the petitioners who fully know about the condition of their son and even then performed his marriage with the complainant. Both parents played active role in the commission of offence and fully supported their son. Some of the ornaments are already recovered and some are yet to be recovered. Raman Kumar father-in-law being power of attorney holder of his son is pursuing civil litigation. Whereabouts of their son are still
-4unknown. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
5.
I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record. FIR has been lodged on the statement of complainant. She has narrated the facts detailed in the FIR as referred above. On account of matrimonial dispute, present FIR has been lodged. Matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre to settle down their differences but no fruitful results could be achieved. As per the documents supplied in the Court, some of the gold ornaments have been recovered and handed over to the Investigating Officer. Regarding remaining articles, it is alleged that they are not in possession of the same. However, handing over of remaining gold ornaments and misappropriation thereof is matter of trial. Till date, Rishabh husband of the complainant has not joined the proceedings.
It is for the Investigating Agency to take action against him as per law. So far as present petitioners are concerned, they have already joined the investigation and handed over the gold ornaments as mentioned in the list. Merits of the case will be decided during trial. No purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars. Therefore, without expressing my mind on the merits of the case, anticipatory bail petition filed by petitioners Raman Kumar and Kiran is allowed. They be not arrested. In case of their arrest, they be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer concerned, subject to condition that petitioner will join investigation as and when required.
-5country without prior permission as provided under Section 482 (2) of BNSS, 2023.
6.
Pending misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 23.01.2026 s %
#& '&
% ( '&