SAKSHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short "Cr.P.C."] for cancellation of the anticipatory bail of respondent No.5 granted by this Court on 12.08.2011 on the ground that the gold ornaments are yet to be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that at the time when the bail was granted, the recovery of gold ornaments was to be effected.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record from which I have found that when the order dated 12.08.2011 was passed, no-one had put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. Although it was argued by the learned State Counsel that some gold ornaments are yet to be recovered, but no prima facie proof was given about the fact that the gold ornaments were actually handed over to the respondent No.5. Rest of the dowry articles were since recovered, therefore, the anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent No.5.

(3.) It is a case where the marriage took place on 24.07.1996. There are 2 children out of the said wedlock. In this 15 years of marriage, there were skirmish and compromise was also effected on 19.06.2010/11.07.2010. Thereafter, the complainant had left the matrimonial home on 24.10.2010 and the FIR was got registered in the month of April, 2011. It cannot be comprehended in a 15 years old marriage that husband would ask for dowry from the wife. Moreover, the bail can be cancelled only in the circumstance if the person on bail is misusing it or intimidating the complainant or threatening his witnesses.