Parvinder Kumar vs State of UT, Chandigarh and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner(husband) and emanating from the record is that, the marriage of complainant-Pinki was solemnized with petitioner-Parvinder Kumar son of Late Sh. Chander Mohan, on 20.01.2010, according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. It was claimed that soon after the marriage, the petitioner and his other co-accused have started demanding a Maruti car from her parents. She could not oblige them on account of poverty of her parents. Thereafter, accused-Sajan threatened her that he had committed two murders and has no fear of jail and threw the complainant out of matrimonial home. Her pregnancy was terminated on account of the conduct of the accused. They also gave beatings to her. In all, according to the complainant, the petitioner and his other co-accused have demanded dowry articles, Maruti car and treated her with cruelty. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused and his other co-accused, vide FIR No. 547 dated 27.11.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/s 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh.

Having exercised and remained unsuccessful before the Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioner, husband and main accused, has preferred the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in the indicated case, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

Ex facie, the arguments of the learned counsel that, since, the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and the allegations of demand of dowry are vague, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

As is evident from the record that, the petitioner is the main accused and husband of the complainant. There are direct allegations that he demanded a Maruti car from her parents and on refusal, they started maltreating and gave beatings to her. Meaning thereby, direct and specific allegations with regard to demand of dowry and Maruti car are assigned to the petitioner-husband. Therefore, taking into consideration the gravity of offences, to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in this relevant connection. If the petitioner is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then the police will be deprived from recovering the dowry articles and effective investigation, which would naturally adversely affect and weaken the case of the prosecution.

There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court(M.M.S. Bedi, J.) passed the following order on March 15, 2013:-

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner from the very beginning has expressed his intention to resume cohabitation with the complainant.

In order to explore the feasibility of any amicable settlement, Pinki wife of petitioner, resident of House No. 3524, Maloya Colony, Chandigarh, is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 2.

Notice of motion for May 6, 2013.

Notice be issued to respondent No. 2 to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 5, 2013 on which date petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to her in order to enable her to meet the misc. and litigation expenses.

Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioner will join investigation on March 30, 2013 between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and in case of his doing so, he will be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

For report of the Mediation Centre and for arguments, to come up on the date fixed.

Again, the petitioner was directed to pay additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant to meet the traveling expenses in addition to Rs. 20,000/-, by way of order dated May 06, 2013. Consequently, the case was adjourned to July 24, 2013. On that day, the case was adjourned for today, at the request of proxy counsel for the petitioner.

Today, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the petitioner-husband has neither paid the amount of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. 20,000/-+ Rs. 5,000/-) to the complainant, nor appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, as directed by this Court. In this manner, the petitioner is guilty of violating the orders of this Court and is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in this respect. In the light of aforesaid reasons, thus seen from any angle and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.

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