Dr. Ajeet Paul Singh Rissam vs State of Punjab

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

Crl. M. No. 15777 of 2012

Application is allowed, as prayed for. Annexures R1 to R3 filed with the application are taken on record. Main Petition Dr. Ajeet Paul Singh Rissam, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 54 dated 31.07.2010 at Police Station Mataur, District Mohali for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

Dr. Ajeet Paul Singh Rissam is the husband of Tejinder Kaur, complainant. They were married on 21.2.2007 at Jammu. After narrating what has been spent by the parents of the complainant in the marriage, the complainant has narrated as to how and in what manner, she has been harassed by the petitioner in connection with demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage took place at Jammu and as it appears from the FIR, 10 days after the marriage, the complainant and the petitioner shifted to Nepal and started living in Bir Ganj. According to him, harassment if any, of the complainant would have been done in Nepal and not in any area within the jurisdiction of this court. He has submitted that the complainant is living separately since 6.6.2009. He has further submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and has handed over all the dowry articles while joining the investigation. He has further submitted that the passport of the complainant and the birth certificate of the only child of the parties is not with the petitioner.

Learned State counsel with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted, on the other hand, that 17 items of gold were given in the marriage, out of which 8 have been returned and 3 out of them did not belong to the complainant. He has submitted that there are allegations of harassment of the complainant at Mohali whenever they used to visit the place. He has further submitted that the child of the parties is with the complainant and is now 4 years and one month old and in the absence of birth certificate, the complainant is unable to get the child admitted to the school. He has further submitted that even the passport of the complainant is with the petitioner and he is not giving the same to her. Though, it is for the trial court to find out from the evidence that would be led before it as to how many ornaments were given in the marriage, it is a fact that despite an undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner on 15.2.2012 that the petitioner would return the passport of the complainant, birth certificate of the child and the ornaments, he did not give the passport of the complainant and birth certificate of the child. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the passport of the complainant and birth certificate of the child are not with him, is of no avail in the face of the said undertaking. There being allegations of harassment and demand of dowry at Mohali, it cannot be said that the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of this court. Consequently, I find the petitioner to be not entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.