MOHIT JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Mohit Jain, son of Harkesh Jain, resident of TP-57, Maurya Enclave, Pritampura, New Delhi, who has been indicted for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 323, 406, 498-A and 506, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 500, dated 19.10.2012, registered at Police Station, Baldev Nagar, District Ambala.

(2.) The epitome of the facts and material, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the controversy of grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, is that the marriage of the complainant, Twini Jain, was solemnized with the petitioner in the month of October, 2004, as per the Hindu customs and rites at Ambala. Her parents had spent about 45-50 lacs on the marriage. However, the petitioner and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry and continued to demand more and more dowry from the complainant and her parents. During the stay of the complainant at her matrimonial home, she was being treated with cruelty on one count or the other. The petitioner along with his parents demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- from the complainant. They used to abuse and beat the complainant. The petitioner also maintained extra-marital relations with the girls and as and when the complainant attempted to prevail upon her husband (petitioner), she was given merciless beatings. The petitioner in connivance with his parents, retained all the dowry articles given to the complainant at the time of her marriage and on subsequent events and thrown her on the road at the mercy of her parents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false. The complainant was never harassed or humiliated by the petitioner or his co-accused. He further submitted that after marriage, the complainant lived with her husband at Delhi and no incident had ever taken place at Ambala, therefore, the Ambala Police has no jurisdiction to register the case and investigate the same in view of the material available on record. He further submitted that the complainant had even filed a complaint with the police at Police Station, Maurya Enclave, New Delhi, and when the petitioner came to know about the said complaint, he presented an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, and transit bail was granted to the petitioner and his parents, vide order dated 26.10.2012. He further submitted that on 8.11.2012, the complainant appeared before the learned Additional sessions Judge, Rohini (Delhi) and gave an undertaking to withdraw her complaint, therefore, the transit bail was extended up to 2.12.2012 to enable the petitioner to approach the Court at Ambala, to move an application for grant of anticipatory bail. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, has wrongly dismissed the application for grant of anticipatory bail.