JUDGMENT
K.S. Kumaran, J.
1. At the instance of Radlia Devi, wife of the petitioner herein, F.I.R. No. 103 dated 12.4.1999 lias been registered under Sections 406/498A I.P.C. at Police Station, Nuh. The relevant allegations found therein are asfollows :-
2. The marriage between Radha Devi and petitioner-Uday Singh took place on 17.4.1998 and dowry articles were given as per the list attached with the complaint. The in-iaws of Radha Devi and the petitioner are greedy. The petitioner stated that the complainant’s father, who had promised to give a Maruti car, had given a scooter only, and pressed the complainant several times to bring Rs. 1,15.000/-. It is also alleged that the complainant had gone to her parents’ house where also, the petitioner came and insisted that if the above said amount is not paid, the complainant will not be taken along with him. The complainant has also alleged that she was even given beatings by the petitioner and others, and that on 16,8.1998, a container filled with kerosene oil was thrown upon her when she entered the kitchen, in order to set her on fire, but since they could not close the door she (the complainant) had come out. The further allegation is that in September. 1998, the in-laws of the complainant removed all her ornaments, beat her and threw her out. According to the complainant, all her Stri Dhan is in possession of her in- laws and the petitioner.
3. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court, Gurgaon for bail in anticipation of arrest, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Gurgaon dismissed his application for bail. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for bail in anticipation of arrest.
4. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the compaiainant is not interested in married life or sexual activity and had even stated that she was married against her consent. According to the petitioner, complainant- Radha Devi has deep inclination and devotion to Radha Swarni Sect, and had stayed in the matrimonial home only for 35 clays without even proper consummation of the marriage. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was. therefore, forced to file a petition for divorce on these allegations on 24.12.1998, that the complainant had entered appearance on 20.3.1999, and has thereafter lodged the F.I.R. in question as a counter- blast on 12.4.1999. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the dowry articles and even a sum of Rs. 21,000/- in cash have been recovered. The learned counsel for the State, of course, conceded that a sum of Rs. 21,000/- was given and that some of the articles were recovered on 6.5.1999, but he contended that a sum of Rs. 1,04,000/- and ornaments of gold and silver which are agreed to be returned by the petitioner, have not been given. He contends that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the complainant also contends that the petitioner has not complied with the order of this Court to place all the articles of dowry before the police. He also contends that gold and silver articles have not been returned back.
6. Therefore, from the arguments, it is seen that the petitioner has joined investigation and has returned some money and certain dowry articles, even according to the State, while, the petitioner contends that he has given back all the dowry articles. There is dispute as to whether some more articles of dowry are to be recovered or not. Therefore, on the ground that some dowry articles are yet to be recovered, the petitioner cannot be denied the relief of bail.
7. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, but at the same time, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case. I am of the view that the petitioner
is entitled to be released on bail.
8. The petition is allowed, in the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall, however, abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Crl.P.C.
9. Petition allowed.