KAUSHIK BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The epitome of the facts and material, which requires to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by main accused (husband) and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of complainant-respondent No.2 Rashim Kaushik (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with petitioner Kaushik Balasubramaniam on 24.1.2007, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies at Ludhiana. An amount of approximately Rs. 15 lacs was stated to have been spent and gold ornaments, sufficient dowry articles, mentioned in Annexure A attached with the FIR, were given by her parents, as per the demand of the accused at the time of solemnization of marriage. The articles were entrusted to the accused. It was claimed that they have again demanded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to purchase the furniture from Bangalore, which was given to the accused by the parents of the complainant. According to the complainant that in the month of April, 2007, the accused again asked her to bring Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of Honda Activa Scooter and one laptop. The complainant asked and her parents gave the amount to the accused to purchase the scooter as well as laptop. They continued demanding cash and dowry articles from the complainant and on her refusal, they started harassing, taunting her and demanded a luxury car for the petitioner as well.

(2.) Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail contained in the FIR, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioner-accused (husband) and other co-accused mis appropriated her dowry articles, repeatedly demanded cash, taunted, harassed and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused (husband) and his parents, by way of FIR No.30 dated 4.5.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana, in the manner depicted here-inabove.

(3.) Having exercised and lost his right in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has now preferred the instant petition in this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail in the indicated case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.