GOPAL KISHAN DUA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered against him under Section 406/498/506 IPC. The petitioner is the husband of the complainant. The accusations against the petitioner are that he used to taunt the complainant for not bringing the enough dowry and used to say that the complainant had no status in the society and her father had not spent enough money in the marriage. He used to keep the complainant locked in the house and used to keep her hungry for days till the complainant told her parents to give him some money. It is further stated in the complaint that in january,1990 the complainant's father had given Rs. 3 lacs to the accused to stop harassing her but this did not satisfy his greed and he kept on harassing and maltreating her. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant gave birth to two children but the accused refused to support the complainant and did not take care of the children. He neglected them. What else is stated in the complaint is that in July, 2004 the accused came late in the night and started beating the complainant with fists and blows and also banged her head on the wall because of which the complainant started bleeding. The complainant suffered multiple injuries but could not tell anyone out of fear. She stayed at home for few days and did not tell her parents about this conduct of the accused. At times she feels like finishing her life , to get rid of such kind of mental and physical torture. The jewellery which was given by the complainant's in law and family at the time of her marriage worth crores of rupees was forcibly taken away by him and has not yet been returned.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the petitioner belongs to a rich family whereas the complainant was from very poor family and the brother of the petitioner was an artist during his life time and neither any dowry was given nor demanded by the petitioner and that the allegations made in the complaint are false and frivolous. It is also urged that the complainant is having affairs with some other boy and in this regard he has produced letters purported to have been written by her paramour besides this some photographs were also shown to the effect that her paramour with the complainant had visited the Taj Mahal. To meet such arguments, learned counsel for the complainant states that the accusations of such nature are false and she had no affairs with any boy. The person who is shown in the photo is a family friend of the complainant 's family and the entire family had gone to visit the Taj Mahal and not the complainant with the boy. The photos shown to the Court indicate joint photographs with the family.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the complainant and also having looked to the complainant and the various documents besides the correspondence exchanged between the parties, it is difficult to hold at this juncture , if she is living a miserable life and had some illicit relations with the person shown in the photographs , it is the domain of the trial judge. At this stage, this Court has to look into the FIR and the accusations made therein. Looking to the nature of the accusations appearing against the petitioner and the manner in which she is being subjected to maltreatment and harassment and also taking into consideration that there are accusations that jewellery articles and all other dowry articles are yet to recover, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in order to recover the articles. It is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Dismissed.