CRM No.M-26369 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-14.10.2010 Suresh son of Dalip Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.N.R.Dahia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G. Haryana. Mr.Johan Kumar, 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 Suresh son of Dalip Singh (husband), has filed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Munshi Ram (father-in-law), Chando (mother-in- law), Mahesh (brother-in-law), Sarita and Ramal (sisters-in-law), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Hisar, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of complainant Shakuntla was solemnized with petitioner Suresh Kumar, but they could not adjust with each other. Felt aggrieved by the conduct of the accused, the complainant earlier moved an application on 29.4.2010 against the petitioner and his other relatives, wherein, the petitioner and his other co-accused were stated to have admitted their mistake and promised to change their behaviour and attitude towards her. In fact, they did not change their behaviour and entered into compromise with malafide intention. The petitioner was stated to have obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank papers and took her pass book in the garb of preparing the bank ATM card. CRM No.M-26369 of 2010 2 The complainant claimed that when she came to her matrimonial home alongwith her children, then her mother-in-law started abusing her. Thereafter, her husband (petitioner) and younger brother Mahesh started dragging by holding from her hair. They also gave severe beating to her. The petitioner has fraudulently withdrawn the entire amount from her account. All the accused gave severe beatings to her and usurped (mis-appropriated) the Stri-dhan, jewellery, cash and other dowry articles in this context. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that the accused have treated her with cruelty on account of and in connection with demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. 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 present petition. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that as the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and nothing remains to be recovered form him, therefore, he is entitled to anticipatory bail, in view of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Mohinder Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2068, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. In Mohinder Kaur's case (supra), the petitioner was mother-in-law of the complainant and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the concession of anticipatory bail was granted to her (mother-in-law), but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the instant case. 8. As is evident from the record that the petitioner, being husband, is the main accused. There are direct allegations against him (petitioner), inter-alia, that he took the pass book, obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank CRM No.M-26369 of 2010 3 papers and has withdrawn the entire amount from her account fraudulently. Not only that, there are direct allegations against the petitioner that he harassed, treated with cruelty and gave severe beatings to the complainant. 9. The learned State counsel, on the instructions from ASI Ranmal, has submitted that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigating agency. As the dowry articles, depicted in the FIR, are yet to be recovered, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential. So taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner, who is husband, is the main accused and dowry articles are yet to be recovered, therefore, to me, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. Above all, it is now well settled principle of law that anticipatory bail should 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. Otherwise, in the absence of recovery of dowry articles, the prosecution case would naturally bound to fail. 11. 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. 12. 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. 14.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge