CRM No.M-26926 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-15.10.2010 Vipan Dhawan son of Sham Sunder Dhawan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.M.K.Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, petitioner Vipan Dhawan son of Sham Sunder Dhawan, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Deepak Dhawan (husband) and Promila Dhawan (mother-in-law), vide FIR No.9 dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 315, 316, 323, 324 and 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station 'D' Division, Amritsar, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that the love/inter-caste marriage of complainant Raman Kumari Dhawan was solemnized with Deepak Dhawan. They consummated the marriage and the complainant became pregnant. Her parents-in- law were not happy with the inter-caste marriage. They started harassing and taunting her. According to the complainant that on 28.1.2010 when she came to her matrimonial home, then her mother-in-law telephonically called her father-in- CRM No.M-26926 of 2010 2 law. She brought her (complainant) down from the roof through stairs by force and by pulling her hair. As soon as, she came down, in the meantime, her husband and father-in-law started kicking on her stomach and her mother-in-law started beating her with an iron rod and caused injuries on her abdomen and back. The injuries caused by the accused culminated in the forced abortion of the complainant and a dead male child was born on 31.1.2010. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 5. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations against the petitioner that he gave kick blows on the stomach of the complainant alongwith his other co-accused resulting into her forced abortion. 6. The learned State counsel, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that the medico legal report of the complainant would reveal that as many as three injuries were found on her abdomen. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary at this stage. 7. What is not disputed here is that almost similar allegations were alleged against Promila Dhawan, wife and co-accused of the petitioner. She filed a petition for anticipatory bail, vide CRM No.M-7761 of 2010. It came to be dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Harbans Lal, J.), vide order dated 22.3.2010 (Annexure P7), relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case State represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal) 268 (SC). Therefore, to me, the petitioner is also not entitled for concession of anticipatory bail under the same set of circumstances. 8. It is now well settled principle of law that anticipatory bail should CRM No.M-26926 of 2010 3 not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. Ultimately, it may seriously affect the process of investigation. An order of anticipatory bail should not be made to create an in-road to the statutory investigational power of the police. In my view, if the petitioner is allowed anticipatory bail, it is likely to occasion interference in the investigational power of the police, which is not legally permissible. 9. In this manner, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the accusation emanating from the record, as discussed above, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail under these circumstances. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 15.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge