Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Pal vs State Of Punjab on 22 May, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-34081 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-34081 of 2012
Date of Decision: 22.5.2014
Ajay Pal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
Mr.M.S.Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Addl. AG, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr.Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Petitioner Ajay Pal son of Harbhajan Singh, Deputy Commandant (Intelligence) with Border Security Force (BSF), claiming himself to be the recommendee for President Police Medal for Gallantry award, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his parents, vide FIR No.6 dated 10.1.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State/complainant.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
Arvind Kumar Sharma2014.05.22 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-34081 of 2012 2
4. As is evident from the record that the marriage of complainant Rajeev Kaler, Advocate, daughter of Ajmer Lal Kaler, was solemnized with the petitioner on 29.11.2009 according to Hindu rites & ceremonies at Sohal Shahnai Resort, GT Road, Opposite Khaira Bhattian Bus stand, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. A Swift car and ` 1 lac in cash for purchasing the furniture, besides gold ornaments and customary dowry gifts, were stated to have been given by her parents at the time of marriage. The petitioner is serving as a Deputy Commandant (Intelligence) with BSF at Gurdaspur, whereas her parents were residing at Amrik Nagri, Phagwara. It was claimed that the accused demanded a sum of ` 10 lac and one CRV Honda City car and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. According to petitioner, the complainant remained in her matrimonial home till 12.5.2010, whereas she (complainant) claimed that she remained there till 10.7.2010. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that petitioner was working as a Deputy Commandant (Intelligence) with BSF at Gurdaspur, whereas, the complainant was residing at Phagwara. In that eventuality, what would be the extent of cruelty to her in connection with and on account of demand of dowry by the petitioner, inter-alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. It appears to be a case of mutual disputes, where both the parties are leveling variety of cross allegations of different nature, against each other and they are facing lot of cross litigations mentioned therein in the petition. The petitioner has already filed a petition (Annexure P3) for divorce against the complainant for dissolution of their marriage u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The other complaint filed by the complainant against the petitioner and his parents & sister u/ss 12, 18, 19, Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.05.22 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-34081 of 2012 3 20, 22 and 23 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, containing similar allegations, is also pending in the Court of JMIC. The complainant is an Advocate by profession. Therefore, false implication of petitioner by her in this case, in order to wreak vengeance, cannot possibly be ruled out at this stage.
5. Not only that, a Swift car, household articles, two ring, weighing 450 grams and 600 grams, have already been recovered by the police from the petitioner on 25.5.2012, during the pendency of petition for anticipatory bail before Additional Sessions Judge. The remaining gold ornaments are stated to be already with the complainant. Ex facie, the celebrated contention of learned counsel for complainant that some gold ornaments are yet to be recovered, lacks merit, as it is no where specifically mentioned by the complainant in the FIR that any other gold ornaments were entrusted to the petitioner at the time of marriage by her father. Moreover, the petitioner is a Deputy Commandant (Intelligence) in BSF and to me, no useful purpose would be served to send him in police custody without any cogent reasons.
6. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Nawab Singh, J.) passed the following order on 1.11.2012 :-
"Ajay Pal - petitioner, husband of the complainant, has filed this application under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for pre-arrest bail in case bearing First Information Report No.6 dated January 10, 2012 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia, has urged that petitioner is Deputy Commandant (Vigilance), Border Security Force, posted at Gurdaspur. The marriage was solemnized on November 29, 2009 Complainant-wife left her matrimonial home on May 12, 2010. The present FIR was registered after about 1½ years. The complainant is a practising lawyer at Goraya.Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.05.22 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-34081 of 2012 4
Notice of motion for 11.1.2013.
Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner Ajay Pal shall be released on bail by Arresting Officer to his satisfaction. Petitioner shall abide by the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) (i) (ii) and (iii) Cr.PC."
7. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Kashmir Singh, has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation & he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Since, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-before and without commenting further anything on merits lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted and the indicated interim bail already granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 1.11.2012 by this Court is hereby made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as envisaged under section 438(2) Cr.PC.
9. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the trial as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. At the same time, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant behalf.
Sd/-
22.5.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Arvind Kumar Sharma
2014.05.22 16:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh