Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak vs State Of Punjab on 14 July, 2010
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
CRL.M.NO.18159-M of 2010 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRL.M.NO.18159-M of 2010
DATE OF ORDER: 14.7.2010
Deepak
.....Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. JASWANT SINGH, J Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.53 dated 12.6.2010 under Sections 406/498-A/509 IPC, P.S. New Baradari, Jalandhar.
It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner-husband and complainant-wife got married on 29.11.2009 and sufficient dowry was given by the parents of the wife. Complainant Poonam Kumari soon after the marriage is alleged to have been maltreated on account of demand of dowry on 21.1.2010 at about 11.30. She was allegedly being tortured by the accused-petitioner and her family members, when her sister Anita, mother Kamla Devi and younger brother Yogesh came to the house of the petitioner-accused and impressed upon them to refrain from doing so. Upon being felt offended, a push was given to Anita as a result, she fell down and got fractures on her right leg. A case FIR No.17 dated 28.1.2010 under Sections 323/325 IPC was also registered. The complainant was turned out CRL.M.NO.18159-M of 2010 #2# of her matrimonial home on 23.1.2010 and she remained in her parental home from 23.1.2010 to 13.2.2010. Subsequently, the matter was compromised in the aforesaid FIR and the complainant was brought home to her matrimonial home. On 23.4.2010, complainant while wearing clothes after taking bath, found a Pen Camera fitted in the bath room allegedly to take new photographs of the complainant. Accused-petitioner offered no explanation for fixing of that Camera. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint regarding retaining of dowry articles as well as hatching a conspiracy for taking nude photographs of the complainant, resulting into lodging of the present FIR.
Learned state counsel states that in pursuance of interim directions passed by this Court, petitioner has joined investigation but he remained non-cooperative and the dowry articles are yet to be recovered.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. There are allegations that the husband had fixed micro camera in the bath room for taking nude photographs of his wife as also regarding raising of demand of dowry and harassing the complainant. Dowry articles are still in his possession. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for investigation of the case.
Dismissed.
July 14, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE