Vikram Suri vs State Of Punjab on 20 February, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikram Suri vs State Of Punjab on 20 February, 2009

                           Crl. Misc. M No. 1412 of 2009
                           Date of Decision: February 20, 2009

Vikram Suri                                         ...........Petitioner

State of Punjab                                       ..........Respondents

Coram:           Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

Present:        Mr.Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate
                for the petitioner.
                Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate
                General, Punjab.


Sabina, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to him in case

FIR No.259 dated 23.11.2008 under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal

Code (`IPC’ for short) registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana.

As per the prosecution case, petitioner got married to Bharti

Suri on 24.4.2004. At the time of marriage, a huge amount was spent by the

parents of the complainant. However, the petitioner and his family members

were not satisfied with the articles given at the time of marriage and started

harassing her. On 15.11.2006, a compromise was effected between the

parties on an application filed before the Police Station Model Town,

Ludhiana. However, the attitude of the petitioner and his family members

did not change towards the complainant. On 15.1.2007, complainant and

her husband started residing separately. However, the harassment of the

complainant at the hands of the petitioner continued. A Honda City Car as

well as various other articles were given at the time of
Crl. Misc. M No. 1412 of 2009 -2-


Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that most of

the articles have been recovered during investigation when the petitioner

was granted interim bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the lots of

articles were yet to be recovered. During investigation of the case, only the

petitioner was found guilty, whereas, his other family members were found


In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner got married to

the complainant in the year 2004. As per the case of the complainant,

petitioner had been harassing her on account of insufficient dowry. As per

the prosecution, lots of articles given at the time of marriage, are yet to be

recovered. Custodial interrogation of petitioner might be necessary.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

( Sabina )

February 20, 2009

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information