Ankush Verma v. State Of Punjab





 








 








 








 






  
  
  
 




 !"#"$%

&'('

(
)*
+ )*
+ )*
+ )*
+
''''

"

"$ ,
+#'
*

 *

 *

 *



























''' #-$.

$ % % % %







/0
/0
/0
/0
*'
* 

 *'
* 

 *'
* 

 *'
* 

 , # $ %
,'
*1"2
)'
*1 ,3 4
.2!

5"

1
,'
) , "6
 $.1"4
.2!

,

-

"

"$ ,'

,'
 -7
*"$814
4
9$7 :'
,'
$ ;
;

<4
.2!

,

!3-< "$ $ '


 4
'


 4
'


 4
'


 4
'
1.

Petitioner has filed instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 of 1 ,

";

 ,"6
*9, 6#1
* $1"

4
& for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.79 dated 25.10.2024 under Sections 406/498A of IPC registered at Police Station Women, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1).
2.

Facts of case are, Simranjit Kaur filed written complaint against her husband Ankush Verma and others members of in-laws' family alleging that her marriage was solemnized with Ankush Verma on 20.08.2021. At the time of marriage, her parents had given dowry as per their demand. She gave birth to a son on 02.02.2023. At the time of roka ceremony and marriage huge money was spent in giving clothes, cash, gold and silver


ornaments. A car was also given as per their demand. Her parents had spent about Rs.20 lakhs on her wedding. After few days, behaviour of her husband and in-laws family completely changed. There was routine quarrels with her. Complainant has narrated incidents which took place in the matrimonial home. Her in-laws harassed her and told her to get share in her parental family. Since they were only three sisters, her husband and in-laws were having an eye on the property of her father. She was beaten up and turned out of the matrimonial home along with child. Matter was compromised but again previous behaviour started and finally she was turned out of the house in September, 2023.
3.

Learned counsel for petitioner argued that allegations levelled against him are false. He was granted interim relief and in pursuance of this he has joined the investigation and dowry articles are already recovered. The car was handed over to the complainant. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions of bail order.

4.

Learned counsel representing State assisted by counsel for complainant opposed the bail application on the ground that gold ornaments are yet to be recovered. Therefore, custodial interrogation of petitioner is required.

5.

I have gone through the record. There is recovery memo showing the recovery of household articles, clothes etc. One recovery memo is dated 08.04.2025 and the other is of 14.04.2025. It is not disputed that car is also handed over to the complainant family. Only dispute is regarding recovery of gold ornaments. I have considered this aspect of the case also. Giving of gold ornaments to the accused or other family members and its

&
misappropriation is matter of trial. Petitioner has joined the investigation and the articles detailed in the recovery memo are also recovered. Therefore, in my opinion, no purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Considering the aforesaid factual position, anticipatory bail filed by petitioner is allowed. He be not arrested. In case of his arrest, he be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer concerned, subject to condition that petitioner will join investigation as and when required. He will not tamper with or interfere with investigation and will not leave country without prior permission as provided under Section 482 (2) of BNSS, 2023.
'
 $."$8
3"#!

<< $ 9#
--<"!

"$=#>4
"
$;4
#

$.
."#-# .


!!,."$8<;
#
5 <<'

















=
 > =
 > =
 > =
 >
























































































&'('

( &'('

( &'('

( &'('

(


























#$.
?1

,
#-

6"$8@,

#$ .
%
 #@'
?1

,
, -,

:<

%
 #@