Wednesday, October 2, 2013

1 more bail denied TILL dowry returned, husband cries NO dowry shows photos, still NO A.B !! So.... is it a rule that husbands should be arrested on every dowry FIR ????

1 more marriage, 1 more bail denied TILL dowry returned, husband cries NO dowry & husband says he was falsely accused, husband shows photos etc..., still NO Anti. Bail !!!!


excerpts
*********************
".........petition for the grant of anticipatory bail to the main accused (husband) and emanating from the record, ...."
".......The marriage was stated to have been solemnized with great pump & show. Her father gave sufficient customary dowry articles and gold ornaments by incurring expenditure beyond his capacity. ...."
".......... As per the initial complaint (Annexure P3), it has been specifically claimed that petitioner and his other relatives used to taunt her for more money and demanded big car, ` 2 lacs and jewellery (duly described in the list (Annexure R2/3). When she refused to oblige them, then, they started beating her....."
"........... At the very outset, placing on record the photographs, purporting to be of complainant and list of dowry articles, Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well........"
".....Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context. .....

............ so .....BAIL DENIED TO THE HUSBAND !!!! 

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE 
******************************************************************
  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No. M-26997 of 2012 (O&M)

Date of Decision:-9.4.2013

Ashish Mehta ...Petitioner Versus

The State of Punjab & Anr. ...Respondents 

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. 
Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr.Gagan Pardeep Singh Bal, Advocate for respondent No.2 

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for deciding the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail to the main accused (husband) and emanating from the record, are that the marriage of complainant Shelly Mehta (respondent No.2) (for brevity "the complainant"), daughter of Suresh Kochhar, was solemnized with petitioner Ashish Mehta on 23.9.2007 at Faridabad, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies. The marriage was stated to have been solemnized with great pump & show. Her father gave sufficient customary dowry articles and gold ornaments by incurring expenditure beyond his capacity. According to the complainant that after solemnization of the marriage, the petitioner and his other relatives started demanding more dowry articles. On her refusal, they gave beatings and turned her out of the matrimonial home. She lodged a complaint against her husband and his other relatives, but during the pendency of inquiry, they gave assurance that in case, she would withdraw her complaint, then, they would rehabilitate her in the matrimonial house gracefully. Consequently, she withdrew the complaint on their assurance. The complainant started attending her duty while residing in a rented flat at Faridabad and waited for her husband to take in her matrimonial home, but in vain. The assurance given by the accused was subsequently found to be false. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

2. As per the initial complaint (Annexure P3), it has been specifically claimed that petitioner and his other relatives used to taunt her for more money and demanded big car, ` 2 lacs and jewellery (duly described in the list (Annexure R2/3). When she refused to oblige them, then, they started beating her. On 17.9.2011, when she went to her matrimonial home, then, she was beaten and dragged in the street from the room. The petitioner repeatedly dragged, gave kicks, slaps and fist blows in her stomach. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the initial complaint (Annexure P3), in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioner-accused taunted, harassed, abused, tortured and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused, by way of FIR No.94 dated 6.5.2012 (Annexure P1/T), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A and 323 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, in the manner described here-in-above.  http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

4. Having exercised and lost his right before the Addl. Sessions Judge, now petitioner Ashish Mehta (husband) has preferred the instant petition in this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

5. Notice of the petition was given to the State.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

7. At the very outset, placing on record the photographs, purporting to be of complainant and list of dowry articles, Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

8. As is evident from the record that, inter-alia direct and very serious allegations are assigned to petitioner-husband, who is main accused in the original complaint that he repeatedly taunted, abused, harassed, tortured, demanded a big car, ` 2 lacs in cash and jewellery from the complainant. It was claimed that although the father of the complainant gave sufficient dowry articles and incurred expenditure beyond his capacity, but still, the accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles and demanded a big car, ` 2 lacs in cash and jewellery. On her refusal, she was tortured and treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles by her husband. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

9. The next cosmetic contention of learned counsel that as there is no reliable material on record to prove the misappropriation of, and specific demand of dowry articles, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, sans merit as well. That stage of proving the misappropriation and demand of dowry articles by the husband, has not yet reached. At the time of consideration of the grant of anticipatory bail or otherwise, only allegations and relatable material have to be kept in focus at this initial stage. As depicted here-in-above, very serious and direct allegations of torture and cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles are assigned to the petitioner-husband, who is main accused. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

10. Sequelly, the mere fact that the parents-in-law of complainant (who were residing separately at Faridabad, whereas the petitioner and complainant were residing at Banglore) were granted the concession of anticipatory bail, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to petitioner-husband, who is main accused in the case, as urged on his behalf. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

11. Not only that, the interim bail/protection was granted by this Court to enable the petitioner to hand over the dowry articles. Although he is stated to have joined the investigation, but he has refused to hand over the dowry articles. The Investigating Officer has submitted the list of dowry articles, which are yet to be recovered from the petitioner. To me, if he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of dowry articles and case property is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution.

12. Moreover, the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of dowry articles/case property from the main accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. Likewise, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations of commission of pointed offences and the fact that the recovery of dowry articles and case property is yet to be effected, to my mind, the petitioner (main accused husband) is not at all entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of other facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioner-husband is hereby dismissed as such.

14. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. 

9.4.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge





*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist