Ravi Pal vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh, J.—Prayer u/s 438 Cr.PC is for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the husband of the complainant-Seema Rani, in case FIR No. 37 dated 19.6.2010 under Sections 406, 498A of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar.

It is averred that the marriage of the Petitioner Ravi Pal was solemnized on 26.11.2008 with Seema Rani-complainant and a female child was born out of their wedlock on 2.10.2009. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had gone to Oman in January 2010 to make a living and returned back in June 2010 after period of six months. It is further stated that right after the marriage the complainant has been trying to persuade the Petitioner

to live with the parents of the complainant as Ghar Jamai and on his refusal the present complaint has been filed with false averments. It is further submitted that keeping in view the recent trend, all the family members of the husband have been roped in in the FIR.

Learned Counsel submits that mother of the Petitioner was arrested and recoveries of dowry articles effected. He further contends that Petitioner has already joined investigations during the interim pre-arrest bail granted by the learned trial court and nothing more is to be recovered from him.

While granting interim protection by this Court the Petitioner was further directed to join investigations and also explore the possibility of a compromise.

At the time of hearing today, on interaction with the parties who are present in the court it is evident that no reconciliation is possible.

Learned State Counsel on instructions from HC Bhushan Kumar states that though the Petitioner has joined the investigation but his attitude has remained uncooperative and most of the gold jewellery belonging to the complainant has not been returned.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping in view the allegations made by the complainant-wife against the husband and the fact that gold jewellery belonging to the complainant still remains to be recovered, in my opinion custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required. Accordingly the prayer for bail is declined.