CRM No. M-20522 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-20522 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.8.2009
Gurvir Singh alias Lali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This is a petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered
against the petitioner under Sections 498-A, 406 & 109 IPC at Police
Station Kotwali, Bathinda, vide FIR No.340 dated 21st May, 2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He has referred to
FIR, Annexure P-4 dated 6th May, 2006 and submitted that the
complainant and her father have been indulging in yellow journalism.
According to the counsel, the credibility of the complainant becomes
doubtful and therefore, her version cannot be believed. This apart,
learned counsel has submitted that in her earlier complaints made by the
complainant, she never levelled the allegations as have been levelled in
the present FIR. Moreover, co-accused of the petitioner have already
been granted bail by the court below. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to
CRM No. M-20522 of 2009 2
the same concession.
Learned counsel for the State has, however, vehemently
opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. He has
submitted that allegations against the petitioner are very serious. He had
subjected his wife to mental and physical cruelty. According to the
counsel, there can be no parity with the co-accused as the petitioner is
the main accused being husband of the complainant.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given
careful thought to the facts of the case.
In a detailed complaint lodged with the police, the
complainant alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical
cruelty in her in-laws house due to demand of dowry. She had vividly
described the agony suffered by her. She had submitted that on 5th
August, 2007, a pill was administered to her resulting in termination of
her pregnancy. She was repeatedly asked by petitioner to bring a motor
cycle and Rs.5.00 lacs from her parents, failing which she would not be
allowed to live in her matrimonial home. On her inability to do so, she
was given beatings and confined to a room. On 5th May, 2008, all the
accused gave beating to her on her inability to bring more dowry and
Rs.5.00 lacs. Later, a Panchayat was also convened but accused
reiterated their demand of Rs.5.00 lacs and more dowry in front of the
Panchayat. This is despite the fact that sufficient dowry was given at
the time of marriage, which had been entrusted to the petitioner and
other co-accused. The same had been retained by the accused.
CRM No. M-20522 of 2009 3
Keeping in view the nature of allegations against the
petitioner, I do not find it a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to him.
There are serious allegations against the petitioner of meting out cruel
treatment to his wife. Such an accused is not entitled to the
discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. I find no force in argument of the
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.
The effort of the counsel to impeach the credibility of the complainant at
this stage by referring to an FIR pertaining to the year 2006, is
misconceived. Appropriate stage for raising such a plea is during the
course of trial.
The petition is devoid of merit. The same is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
August 20, 2009
‘rajpal’