MAYANK MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 214 dated 29.04.2013 for offences under Sections 354, 376, 406, 498-A, 506 and 420 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

(3.) The marriage of petitioner was solemnized with complainant at Kanpur on 17.11.2007 with great pomp and show. The couple met earlier at Panchkula in the year 2004. Before the marriage roka ceremony was performed in the month of June, 2007 at Panchkula and thereafter engagement ceremony was also held at Kanpur on 16.11.2007. As per version contained in FIR amount of Rs. 15 to Rs. 20 lacs was spent in the marriage and sufficient dowry was given. In-laws family had been harassing and taunting the complainant for not bringing sufficient dowry. The couple stayed together at Kanpur, Noida and also in USA. Soon after the marriage couple started residing in Noida where complainant was working at Nucleus Software Exports Limited, Noida whereas the petitioner was unemployed and used to sit idle at home. Detailed allegations have been made about giving of dowry on different occasions. Suddenly in the month of June, 2010, the petitioner went to USA and despite insistence by the complainant to take her alongwith him he refused and left alone. The petitioner compelled the complainant to resign from job and choose an option either to live with his parents or her own parents. Eventually the petitioner came to India in the month of July, 2011 for two weeks only. The petitioner told the complainant that she can be taken to USA only on one condition that the return ticket would be arranged by her parents. Her father paid a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the petitioner and she went there in July, 2011. In USA she was constantly harassed and on one occasion the neighbourers saved her. When she threatened to call the Police the petitioner pleaded apology and promised not to repeat such acts again. The complainant had come to India in March, 2012 and her return was scheduled for 18.05.2012 but the petitioner in connivance with his parents threatened her to cancel the tickets as those were booked by the petitioner only. The complainant, however, left for USA on 13.05.2012 at her own expenses. But on reaching there she found the house to be locked. She sought help of the neighbourers and she was informed that her husband was leaving for India after two days.