LAWS(P&H)-2001-10-80

HARJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On October 16, 2001
HARJIT KAUR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek anticipatory bail in the case bearing FIR No. 89 dated 28.4.2001, under Sections 406/420/498-A of the Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar. The present case was registered at the instance of Balbir Singh. Kulbir Kaur, complainant had married to Tejinder Singh who at the time of marriage was residing in U.S.A. On 28.1.1998, he had come to India for marriage which was arranged through his uncle Gurbachan Singh. The complainant was given assurance that after marriage she will be taken to U.S.A. after completing the formalities.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the complainant, about Rs. eight lacs were spent on the marriage by the father of the complaint. At the time of Sagun ceremony, Rs. 1 lac plus other dowry articles, as per the list which has been attached, were given. At the time of marriage, cash amount of Rs. 2 lacs was paid in lieu of furniture, utencils etc. as the boy was settled abroad. Other jewellery items worth Rs. 2 lacs were given to the relations of the petitioners at the time of marriage.

(3.) LEARNED counsel representing the petitioners has submitted that only general allegations of demand of dowry and insufficiency of gifts given to the complainant at the time of birth of a female child by her parents have been levelled. It has also been stated before me that after the interim bail was granted by this court on 20.6.2001, the petitioners have joined the investigation. In view of the submissions made, the learned State Counsel submits that the petitioners had joined the investigations on 21.6.2001, and 26.6.2001, at the same time, he stated that dowry articles are yet to be recovered and whereabouts of Tejinder Singh is not known. 4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the complaint and the Stand taken by the parties, the pertinent fact which is discernible is that general allegations of demand of dowry has been made and no specific allegation has been attributed to the petitioners/accused.