IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.32947 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.7.2010 Sandeep Kumar ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate, for the complainant. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioner Sandeep Kumar for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 76 dated 4.11.2009 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 23.11.2009 and while issuing notice of motion the petitioner was directed to be released on bail subject to certain conditions as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 23.11.2009, petitioner has joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the State submits that although the Crl.Misc. No.32947 of 2009 :2: petitioner has joined the investigation but recovery of gold ornaments weighing about 35 tollas have not been effected and the petitioner has not co-operated in the investigation. Since recovery of gold ornaments of 35 tollas as well as other dowry articles and cash amount of Rs.2 lacs have not been effected from the petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no dowry was given at the time of mariage and it has wrongly been mentioned that gold ornaments weighing about 35 tollas were given at the time of marriage. It was a case of simple marriage and no dowry was given at the time of marriage. Moreover, the present complaint has been filed to falsely implicate the petitioner as well as his family members. It was a case of temperamental differences and because of that reason complainant was not ready to adjust with the present petitioner. Mr.Dhariwal, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that a detailed inquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police and the petitioner was not found involved in the case and only on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant, the petitioner and other accused have been summoned. I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of FIR as well as other documents on record. As per case of the complainant, marriage between petitioner and complainant took place on 28th March, 2009. At the time of marriage Crl.Misc. No.32947 of 2009 :3: gold ornaments weighing about 35 tollas were given to the present petitioner and other relatives. The complainant was treated with cruelty for not giving sufficient dowry and was being harassed by the petitioner as well as other accused and was given maltreatment at their instance. An amount of Rs.2 lacs was given to the accused and subsequently a demand of Rs.5 lacs was made by the accused for purchasing new car. The behaviour of the present petitioner was not good being drugs addict. It has also been mentioned in the complaint that even efforts were made by the accused to kill the complainant by burning. During the pendency of the present petition, efforts were made to compromise the matter with the help of both advocates appearing for the parties and the complainant was agreed to settle the dispute on returning gold ornaments or amount in lieu thereof but the petitioner, who was present in the Court, flatly refused to pay any amount as no dowry was given at the time of marriage. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that a list of dowry articles was handed over to the petitioner but recovery thereof has not been effected inspite of giving opportunity and the petitioner has not remained co-operative in the investigation. Specific allegations are there against the present petitioner who is husband of the complainant. Although he has joined the investigation but recovery of the dowry articles as well as cash amount have not been effected from him. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence and specific Crl.Misc. No.32947 of 2009 :4: allegations and also the conduct of the petitioner for not co-operating in the investigation, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. It is a settled principle of law that anticipatory bail is an extra ordinary remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in case Adri Dharam Dass Vs. State of West Bengal 2005(2) R.C.R (Criminal) 32 that powers exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are somewhat extra ordinary in character and is only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person may be falsely implicated. So, the petitioner in order to seek the relief of anticipatory bail in this case is required to make out a special case in his favour or the case appears to be false or where the applicant is likely to be harassed unnecessarily due to some extraneous reasons. Similarly, in Bal Chand Jain v. State of M.P. AIR 1977 SC 366, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following proposition with regard to grant of anticipatory bail:- “(i) The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. (ii)The said power is not unguided or uncanalised but all the limitations imposed in the preceding Section 437 Cr.P.C., are implicit therein and must be read into Section 438 as well. (iii)In addition to the limitations imposed in Section 437, the petitioner must further make out a special case for the Crl.Misc. No.32947 of 2009 :5: exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.” So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the gravity and seriousness of the offence, no ground is made out for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the present petition for anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made here-in- above will not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE July 21, 2010. raghav