RAM KISHORE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the afore-mentioned petitions have been filed under CRM No.M-1577 of 2012 Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.537 dated 12.12.2011 registered under Section 498-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, dismissing the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners.

(2.) BRIEF allegations are that petitioner Sanjay was married to Sunita daughter of complainant Dhanpati on 20.2.2000. However, present petitioners were dissatisfied with dowry and they started harassing Sunita. Earlier a compromise was arrived due to intervention of Women Cell but there was no change and the harassment continued. Even a divorce petition was also filed by petitioner Sanjay which is also pending. At the time of issuing notice of motion, it was contended on behalf of petitioners that petitioner Sanjay is still ready to reconcile the differences and rehabilitate daughter of complainant in the matrimonial home and hence, notice was issued to complainant and his daughter who came present. She is also having a nine years old child. She was ready to go with the petitioner. However, later on petitioner refused to take her and her minor child in the matrimonial home. They were also sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and however, petitioner Sanjay did not agree. Petitioner was also burdened with costs of Rs.10,000/- for being paid to respondent-wife as her expenses for attending this Court on various dates of hearing. However, the said amount has not been paid. Learned counsel for respondents-complainant contends that CRM No.M-1577 of 2012 -3- though respondent along with minor child is living separately since last about three years and though she also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and however, nothing has been paid by the petitioner for her maintenance as well as for maintenance of minor child. Bail applications have also been opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that dowry articles are yet to be recovered. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners- accused.