CRM No.M 35655 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M 35655 of 2009 Date of decision: 2.12.2010 Daulat Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.RK Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab Mr.HP Verma, Advocate for the complainant. *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by petitioner Daulat Ram under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 52 dated 20.11.2009 registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at police Station Gardhiwala, District Hoshiarpur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. The brief allegations against the petitioner are that marriage of the complainant Amanpreet Kaur was solemnised with the petitioner on 10.4.2005 in the Shagan Palace, Dasuya. However, petitioner and his family were not satisfied with dowry given by the parents of the complainant, who spent a sum of Rs.5-6 lacs in the marriage. There was a demand of CRM No.M 35655 of 2009 2 motorcycle. Parents of the complainant had given Rs.10,000/- on 1.1.2006, Rs.25000/- on 8.2.2006, Rs.15000/- on 22.3.2006, Rs.25000/- on 28.4.2006 and Rs.1,25,000/- on 13.9.2007. Even when petitioner had gone abroad, he used to demand money on telephone. Parents of the complainant had been fulfilling the demand. Many Panchayats were also convened. However, harassment of the complainant did not stop. Compromises were also reduced into writing on 1.5.2006, 6.6.2008 and 24.10.2008. Lastly, a demand of Rs.1,50,000/- was raised by the petitioner and his parents on 15.7.2009. She was thrown out of her matrimonial home. On 3.8.2009, complainant alongwith her parents visited the house of her in-laws. However, they refused to keep her in the matrimonial home and turned her out alongwith her two years minor daughter. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is ready to keep and maintain the complainant and minor daughter. The complainant has refused to accompany the petitioner. Efforts of reconciliation were made in this case since the filing of the petition. Earlier a sum of Rs.50,000/- was also paid by the petitioner to the complainant on two occasions during pendency of this petition. Counsel for the complainant contends that the petitioner is in a habit of giving beatings and that he has pressurised the complainant to bring money from her parents so that he may again go abroad. In view of the past conduct of the petitioner, the complainant does not want to risk her life as no other responsible person from the family of the petitioner, even his father has not come forward to give assurance that the petitioner will keep the CRM No.M 35655 of 2009 3 complainant and her minor daughter properly in the matrimonial home. The bail petition has also been opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that no dowry article has been recovered from the petitioner so far and hence, in view of serious allegations of mental and physical torture of the complainant against the petitioner, he is not entitled for extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner Daulat Ram is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. Interim order dated 24.12.2009 already granted in his favour stands vacated. December 2, 2010 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE