Aman Arora vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The compendium of the facts and material, which requires to be noticed for deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of complainant Alka Arora (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with petitioner Aman Arora on 1.9.2004, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies at Amritsar. Her parents were stated to have spent huge amount, gave one maruti car to petitioner at the time of her marriage and gave sufficient dowry articles. The complainant claimed that after the marriage, the petitioner and his family members started demanding more dowry articles, one swift car and cash of Rs. 50,000/- from her. She requested that her parents have already given sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage and now they are not in a position to give them swift car and cash of Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter, they started giving beating, used filthy and abusive language against her. Ultimately, they turned her out of the matrimonial home. However, with the intervention of respectables, the matter was settled. According to the complainant that after some time, the petitioner and his parents again started demanding swift car and cash of Rs. 50,000/- and again turned her out of the matrimonial home. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, 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-accused, by means of FIR No. 141 dated 7.6.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar City, in the manner depicted herein-above.

Having exercised his right and failed in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has now preferred the instant petition in this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail in the indicated case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

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.

As is evident from the record that, inter-alia direct and very serious allegations are assigned in the FIR to husband-petitioner that he repeatedly taunted, abused, harassed, tortured and demanded Swift car & Rs. 50,000/- in cash from the complainant. He was not satisfied with the dowry articles already given at the time of marriage. On her refusal, she was tortured and treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles by her husband.

The next celebrated 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, lacks merit as well. That stage of proving the misappropriation and demand of dowry articles by the petitioner-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 of investigation.

As indicated 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 petitioner (husband). His custodial interrogation is essential in this respect. To me, if he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of dowry articles/case property is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of 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 inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. Sequelly, 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 indicated offences and that the recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected, to my mind, the petitioner-husband is not at all entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

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