IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1070 of 2009 Date of decision : 24.12.2009. Robinder Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 132 dated 11.9.2009 registered at Police Station, Baddi, under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case which has been registered at the instance of Dr. Harmanjit Kaur wife of the petitioner. In fact, Dr. Harmanjit Kaur complainant had filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nalagarh, who sent the complaint to Police Station, Baddi under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes. 2 registration of the case and thereafter FIR No.132 was registered on 11.9.2009 at Police Station, Baddi. It has been submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was arranged marriage. There was no demand of any nature from the side of the petitioner. At the time of marriage complainant was working as Lecturer and posted at Dehradun. It was clear understanding between the parties that after marriage the complainant will have to stay in her matrimonial home at Mohali and the job of the complainant would not disturb the marriage life of the parties. 3. The marriage between the complainant and the petitioner was solemnized on 21.1.2006. The complainant after the marriage started living with the petitioner at Mohali but complainant did not give her job at Dehradun and continued with her assignment. This affected the married life of the petitioner and the complainant. The petitioner and his family tried to impress the complainant that there was no necessity to continue her in the job at Dehradun, however, if she was to continue to work she should take up some assignment at or near Mohali. The complainant got herself transferred to Fatehgarh Sahib in July, 2006 and the complainant continued her job by commuting daily from her matrimonial home at Mohali. 4. The behaviour of the complainant since the inception of marriage was hostile and unreasonable. The complainant was not interested in the company of the petitioner and always kept on complaining about one thing or the other and tried to let him down in one way or the other indicating that she was not at all happy in the joint family. This left the petitioner in embarrassing situation. The complainant was very rude towards petitioner and his family members. 5. The complainant had her bank account in Dehradun and she did not have any bank account at Mohali. Therefore, after the marriage, on the suggestion of the complainant joint account was opened at Mohali. The 3 complainant had no independent proof of separate residence at Mohali. This factor also contributed for opening of joint account of petitioner with complainant at Mohali. 6. The complainant was suffering from some gynecological problem. In view of family circumstances of the petitioner, the petitioner could not accept the demand of the complainant of living separately from his parents and younger sister who was unmarried at that time. On 28.9.2006 the complainant had gone with her parents to Baddi but did not return to her matrimonial home despite assurances. In November, 2006 the complainant took job at Baddi, a male child was born on 1.2.2007 to the complainant. The petitioner and his family members were not even informed or invited in the ‘Namkaran’ ceremony of the child by the complainant. On 8.7.2007 complainant came to her matrimonial home but the minor son was left at Baddi. The complainant had come to her matrimonial home only to collect her left over articles which she took away on that very day. The petitioner was constrained to file divorce petition against the complainant in April, 2009. After the receipt of notice from the Court at Mohali, the complainant has filed the false criminal case against the petitioner and his family. 7. It has been submitted that petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- has been transferred by the complainant from the joint account at Mohali in her separate account. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that a cheque of Rs. 3, 54,120/- was separately given to the complainant after the last date of hearing in the present case and which cheque has been encashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the FIR wherein the complainant has stated that accused No.2 took everything like ornaments and other valuables from the 4 complainant to be kept in a safe custody with her. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the basis of status report. It has been submitted that petitioner has treated the complainant with cruelty and demanded dowry from complainant and her parents. The cash and jewellery of the complainant has been mis-appropriated by the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General on instructions received from ASI Kalyan Singh present in the court has stated that an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- has been got transferred by the complainant from the joint account which she was having with the petitioner in her separate account and the cheque of Rs. 3,54,120/- issued by the petitioner has been encashed. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that recovery of gold items weighing 262 grams and 100 grams silver is to be made from the petitioner and therefore, the custody of the petitioner is required. 9. Interim bail was granted to the petitioner on 18.12.2009, he has joined the investigation. It is not the grievance of the investigating agency that petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no gold or silver items mentioned in the status report are with the petitioner. He has submitted that there is no allegation in the FIR that these items were given to the petitioner. He has submitted that as per the complainant these items were allegedly given to accused No.2, who has already been granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on 15.12.2009. 10. In the order dated 15.12.2009, it has been observed that in the status report there is no allegation that any specific amount was given to petitioners nor there is any allegation that gold items which have not been allegedly returned to the complainant and mentioned in the status report 5 were actually given by the complainant or on her behalf by anyone to the petitioners. The order dated 15.12.2009 was passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1054 of 2009, in which Gajendra Singh and Smt. Jaspal Kaur parents of Robinder Singh (Petitioner) were the petitioners. 11. In the status report, it has been alleged that petitioner tries to use the influence but this stand has not been elaborated. The investigating agency has stated that petitioner has denied the handing over of the gold and silver items to him. The complainant herself has not produced any bill of gold and silver items. The petitioner has got recovered the entire cash amount involved in the case. 12. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 132 dated 11.9.2009 registered at Police Station, Baddi, under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 IPC, he is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner nor he will terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. December 24, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.