Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vibhu Dham vs State Of Punjab And Another on 16 July, 2013
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
CRM No.M-25535 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-25535 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 16, 2013.
Vibhu Dham
..........PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
.........RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, D.A.G. Punjab
counsel for respondent-State.
Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.
*******
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
CRM No.32478 of 2013
Requests for placing on record copy of MLR Annexure P-7 of petitioner. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
Criminal misc. application stands disposed of. CRM M-25535 of 2012 The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of Mehta Sachin 2013.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-25535 of 2012 -2- Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.180 dated 14.07.2012 under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station 'A' Division, District Amritsar.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
Brief allegations are that marriage of petitioner was solemnized with complainant on 15.05.2010at Park Hotel near Kacheri Gate, Amritsar as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given by parents of complainant. However, petitioner and his family members were not satisfied with the same. They used to harass the complainant on account of dowry. There are specific allegations of harassment and having committed acts of physical violence upon the complainant by the petitioner and his family members. She was turned out of the matrimonial home. Her dowry articles were also not returned.
Notice of motion was issued on the assurance of the petitioner that he was ready to rehabilitate complainant and minor child in the matrimonial home. Twice the matter was sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and however, the dispute could not be settled.
Mehta Sachin 2013.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-25535 of 2012 -3-
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that even during the pendency of this petition, somebody attacked him at the instance of complainant and he sustained two injuries as mentioned in his MLR Annexure P-7. It is further contended that he also moved a complaint before the police in which he named the alleged assailant.
Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the respondent-State on the plea that petitioner is filing various applications since the very beginning just to create evidence. It is further contended that father of the petitioner is employed in the hospital and he has procured the MLR which shows only two small contusions. It is further submitted that earlier as well, a false complaint was given by the petitioner to the police and just thereafter a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed. Hence, it is contended that he was having no intention to rehabilitate complainant and minor child in the matrimonial home and he was filing various petitions just to create evidence.
Petitioner is husband of complainant and there are serious allegations against him. Complainant-wife alongwith her minor child is living separately. Dowry articles are yet to be recovered.
In view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra- ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner- accused.
Mehta Sachin 2013.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-25535 of 2012 -4-
Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner Vibhu Dham is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Interim order dated 23.08.2012 stands vacated.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 16, 2013. JUDGE Sachin M. Mehta Sachin 2013.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH