Last Updated on
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 1412 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 20, 2009 Vikram Suri ...........Petitioner Versus 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