Last Updated on September 7, 2024 by Satish Mishra
This post is a case digest on 498A 406 IPC Anticipatory Bail High Court Chandigarh wherein the FIR was registered owing out of matrimonial dispute. As per settled criminal jurisprudence, bail is rule and jail is an exception. The bail was granted based on the reasoning that recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of the wife/minor children can otherwise be protected as relied upon in Hon’ble Supreme Court in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Versus Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 226.
- The police and court are not a recovery mechanism, and the failure of the investigation officer to recover Streedhan is not a reason to reject anticipatory bail.
- The court has the discretion to grant bail or not, with the condition for the recovery of Streedhan.
In most recent judgment of High Court, following principles of law emerge regarding 498A Bail owing to Istri-dhan:
(I) Non-recovery of dowry articles/Istri-dhan cannot ordinarily be a ground, by itself, for declining a plea for grant of
anticipatory bail to the husband or his relatives.
(II) The conduct of an accused, is indeed, a relevant factor for consideration of a plea for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of such accused. Such conduct would also include the cooperation, in accordance with law, extended by such accused for recovery of dowry articles/Istri-dhan. Whether or not such cooperation was extended by the accused would be ascertainable from the facts and circumstances of a given case.
(III) In exceptional cases, if the peculiar and/or accentuating facts/circumstances of the case so warrant, a Court would be well within its discretion to pass a direction to the petitione raccused to deposit in Court or remit to the complainant-wife an appropriate amount towards the Istri-dhan/dowry articles
Needless to state herein that it is neither possible nor desirable to enumerate a set of guidelines in this regard & a Court would have to exercise its judicial discretion in this regard in the facts and circumstances of a given case.
Also Read- All About Getting Bail in India
Deciding Judge and the Authority
Hon’ble Justice Hari Pal Verma
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Criminal Misc. No.M-24567 of 2019
Date of Decision: 29.01.2020
Court giving Judgement: Chandigarh
Petitioner
Satish Kumar Vohra
Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Respondent
State of Punjab
Present
Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Hittan Nehra, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, Advocate for
Mr. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.
Also Read- Bail, Anticipatory Bail, Regular Bail, Interim Bail in Chandigarh
Important Sections included in this Case
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code
- Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Also Read- Apprehension of Arrest: Get an Anticipatory Bail.
Facts and Judgement of the Case
According to the case, a prayer in this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the case FIR No.26 dated 25.04.2019 under Section 498-A IPC which is registered at Police Station Women Cell, Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, District Jalandhar.
Also Read- In What Cases Bail Can Be Cancelled?
The FIR was filed on the behest of the Complainant Shweta. The Complainant marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2006. According to the FIR she has registered against her in-laws, she harassed and been forced for the demand of the dowry after one year of marriage. Her husband, who was an addict to the habit of taking liquor, usually remained under the influence of liquor and due to this reason, the sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law (Nandoi) of the complainant used to take the benefit of his drunkened condition. As per the FIR, because of this reason the Complainant was usually remained in tensions. It has been alleged that the complainant had no space to reside in her matrimonial home and she is not being given share in the house.
Also Read- Anticipatory Bail Basics
Learned Counsel from the Petitioner side
On 28.05.2019, while staying the arrest of the petitioner following order was passed by this Court:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the marriage between the petitioner and complainant was solemnised in the year 2006 and out of this wedlock, a son is born to them. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the complainant is interested to have share in the property as the petitioner is in the habit of taking drink.
Also Read- Quashing of FIR 498A 406 IPC High Court Chandigarh
Notice of motion for 14.08.2019.
Till next date of hearing, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed.”
Thereafter, on 14.10.2019, interim bail was granted to the petitioner and he was directed to join investigation.
Also Read- Anticipatory Bail from High Court
Learned Council from the State
Learned State counsel has argued that recovery of 20 tola gold and other articles, which include clothes, furniture, TV, AC, Activa, is yet to be effected from the petitioner.
At this stage, Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, Advocate for Mr. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his power of attorney in Court, which is taken on record. He has argued that the petitioner has harassed the complainant, compelling her to bring more dowry.
2 of 3 I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Also Read- Anticipatory Bail in 498a Cases
The marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2006. The present FIR has been lodged under Section 498A IPC only and no offence under Section 406 IPC has been found mentioned.
As regard the argument of learned State counsel that recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected from the petitioner, reference may be made to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma and others Versus State of U.P. and another 2017(3) RCR (Criminal) 836, wherein it has been held that recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of the wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Similar view has also been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Versus Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 226.
Also Read- Where to File 498a and Dowry Case in 2019?
Considering the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation, the present petition is allowed and the interim order dated 14.10.2019 is made absolute.
At the end, court concluded its judgement by telling the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when directed by the investigating agency and shall abide by the terms and conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Also Read- When can Punjab Haryana High Court grant Anticipatory Bail?
For case specific advice on Anticipatory bail in 498A 406 IPC Offences one may contact best top expert Criminal Lawyers Advocates of Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh or District & Sessions Court Mohali Panchkula Kharar Derabassi.
This post is written by Aman Dube.
More info on 99888-17966.
1 thought on “498A 406 IPC Anticipatory Bail High Court Chandigarh”
Comments are closed.