AMAN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Aman Gupta, son of Sarnesh Kumar Garg, resident of House No. 120, 1st Floor, Silvery City Extension, Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498 -A, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 1, dated 3.1.2013, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Bathinda. Learned senior counsel submitted that on 1.3.2010 the marriage of the petitioner, Aman Gupta, was solemnized with the complainant, Rajni Gupta, at Bathinda. After about one and a half months of the marriage, the complainant joined the petitioner at Delhi where he was serving as an engineer. Thereafter, in the month of January, 2011, both of them shifted to S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (Punjab). The husband and wife could not pull on well and, as such, on 23.10.2012, the petitioner was forced to file a divorce petition (Annexure P -1) before the learned District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. It has also been contended that even a suit for mandatory injunction (Annexure P -2) was filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, seeking direction to his wife, Rajni Gupta, her father, Ashok Mittal, and her mother, Bina Mittal, to receive the items as detailed in Annexure A -1 of the said suit, from the petitioner which were allegedly given in as gifts in the marriage of the petitioner and Rajni Gupta. He also submitted that the petitioner and his family members never made any demand of dowry etc. from the complainant, Rajni Gupta, and her family members. The Istridhan of Rajni Gupta always remained with her. It was also submitted that all the articles were returned to the complainant and after joining the investigation by the parents of the petitioner, the police also recovered the jewellery etc. It has also been argued that in compliance of the interim order, dated 15.2.2013, passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation, therefore, the said interim order be made absolute and the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State, assisted by Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that recovery of certain dowry articles would not matter in this case; the allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature; from the very beginning, the petitioner and his family members meted out the complainant, Rajni Gupta, with maltreatment, cruelty and harassment; specific instances of cruelty have been mentioned in the FIR; due to the beatings received at the hands of the petitioner and her family members, Rajni Gupta suffered miscarriage; and that constant demands of dowry by the petitioner and maltreatment on that account with Rajni Gupta, has specifically been alleged.

(3.) IN the First Information Report recorded on the statement of Rajni Gupta, it is found mentioned that when she was pregnant, she was severely beaten up by the accused persons and as a result thereof, the miscarriage had taken place. Specific instances of beatings are mentioned in the FIR. A perusal of the FIR further shows that there was regular harassment and beating to the complainant, Rajni Gupta, by the petitioner and his family members. During course of arguments, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the complainant has done her Master's degree in Computer Application (MCA) and she faced all the bad behaviour of the petitioner and his family members so that her matrimonial tie remained intact. Though it has been stated that the petitioner has joined the investigation, but that by itself would not be sufficient. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is the main accused. The parents of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be essential in the present case. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and, as such, the present petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.