Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh Alias Tony vs State Of Punjab And Another on 10 October, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.M.No.M-31865 of 2012(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-31865 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: October 10, 2012
Jaswinder Singh alias Tony
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate
for the petitioner.
......
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.61022 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-31865 of 2012 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.98, dated 15.10.2009, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Lohian.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations are that marriage of petitioner was performed with complainant as per Sikh rites and ceremony on 7.3.2007. It was assured at the time of marriage that as petitioner was residing in Germany, he would also take the complainant with him to Germany and hence, good marriage was performed by parents of the complainant. Sufficient articles were given in the dowry. However, after the marriage there was demand of a vehicle. Though parents of the complainant had shown their inability to give vehicle initially and, however, taking into consideration the future of the complainant the said demand was also fulfilled. A sum of `20 lacs were spent on the marriage. Sufficient ornaments were also given at the time of Crl.M.No.M-31865 of 2012(O&M) -2- marriage. However, just after ten days of the marriage, petitioner returned to Germany assuring that he would soon take the complainant as well to Germany and, however after reaching Germany he even stopped talking to the complainant and started instigating his family members to turn her out of the house till demands of more dowry are met. Complainant continued to tolerate all the behaviour in the hope that one day petitioner would take her to Germany and things would be alright with the passage of time. Petitioner returned to India in September -October 2007 and when complainant enquired from him about ill behaviour of his family members towards her, he told her that if she wants to settle in Germany then she would have to bring a big car from her parents as per their status and that he was having some other big offers of marriage. On her refusal, beatings were given by petitioner to her. Even other co-accused joined him in committing physical assault on her. She returned to the house of her parents. A panchayat was convened by her parents and accused were contacted. They agreed to rehabilitate her in the matrimonial home. However, after few days petitioner returned to Germany. After some months behaviour of other family members towards complainant changed and when he complained the petitioner on telephone about their behaviour, he rather abused her and told her that if she wanted to settle in Germany then she would have to bring `20 lacs from her father and only then she would be taken to Germany. Hence, there was demand of a big car and `20 lacs. When she informed about the said demand to her father, a panachyat was again convened and they met the accused including the petitioner and, however, they started misbehaving with the father of the complainant and insisted on the demand of a car and `20 lacs. During this period accused no.1 also returned to India in 2008. Father of complainant again discussed the matter with him and other family members and, however, petitioner even misbehaved with father of complainant and told him that if he wanted to rehabilitate his daughter and if he wanted to send her abroad then he would have to fulfil their demand. They even disclosed that they had already married petitioner second time and obtained sufficient dowry. Father of complainant also enquired and came to know that petitioner already married in Germany and also have children with his wife in Germany. Another panchayat was convened but to Crl.M.No.M-31865 of 2012(O&M) -3- no effect. Rather threat was raised to members of the Panchayat as well by family members of the petitioner.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that respondent no.2 also filed a divorce petition against petitioner and obtained ex parte divorce. It is further contended that petitioner wants to settle dispute with respondent no.2 after returning to India. It is also contended that petitioner has not contracted any marriage in Germany. It is also contended that he was never duly served and that proceedings vide which he was declared proclaimed offender are not legal.
However, there are serious allegations against petitioner- accused. Petitioner has spoiled life of an innocent girl. He contracted marriage with her in India with the promise that he would take her to Germany and, however, just after ten days of the marriage, he left for Germany and had never taken respondent no.2 to Germany. Hence, she was having no other option but to file divorce petition against him.
Hence, in view of serious allegations against petitioner-accused and in view of the fact that he has been absconding for the last about three years, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Jaswinder Singh alias Tony for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
10.10.2012 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge