RAJIV KAWATRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Rajiv Kawatra, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 498-A and 506, IPC, in FIR No. 588, dated 13.8.2012, registered at Police Station, City, Sirsa.

(2.) Learned counsel contends that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized in the year 2003. He further contends that on account of suspicion of illicit relations of the petitioner with another lady, respondent No. 2-complainant, Seema, had lodged the present FIR. He further contends that the complainant-wife was insisting the petitioner to reside at Hisar, but on account of responsibility of the remaining members of his family, the petitioner was not in a position to live at Hisar. He also contends that the allegations levelled in the FIR are general in nature. No specific allegation of harassment or demand of dowry has been alleged. He also contends that all the members of the family of the petitioner were named in the FIR, but during investigation the allegations against the rest of the family members of the petitioner, were found to be false. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Jagdish Thakkar v. State of Delhi,1993 CCJ 103.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State and Mr. Saurabh Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant, have vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. They submit that though the other family members of the petitioner were found to be innocent during investigation, but the recovery of the dowry articles have to be effected from the petitioner. Even the car and other articles, which were allegedly handed over to the petitioner at the time of the marriage, have not been returned. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant has further argued that the petitioner is maintaining illicit relations with another lady, who has been named as respondent No. 4 in the complaint filed by respondent No. 2-complainant before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, and ignoring the complainant.