AMANPREET SINGH SAINI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is husband of complainant Jasjit Kaur. He seeks concession of pre -arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of his wife Jasjit Kaur alleging that the petitioner and his family members had been harassing the complainant on account of their demand of dowry having not been fulfilled. The complainant filed complaint on 11.12.2012 to SSP Hoshiarpur, which was referred to P.S. Women Cell. After deliberations with both the parties an agreement dated 6.2.2013 was arrived at between the parties. The marriage was got registered on 7.2.2013 on insistence of the husband. Prior thereto, the petitioner had filed a divorce petition in the Family Court at Pune. The complainant along with her in -laws had gone to Pune. Thereafter parents of the complainant received summons from a court at Hoshiarpur. The complainant was informed by her parents that 20.2.2013 was the date fixed before the court. When asked, the petitioner was evasive about the divorce petition. In the meantime, he had planned to visit Malaysia. He left Pune on 7.3.2013. The complainant was asked to make a statement in the court that they had been living separately for the last one month from 7.2.2013 to 3.3.2013, contrary to the actual facts. After obtaining a copy of the divorce petition from the court at Pune, the complainant was asked to go to Hoshiarpur as she was not needed at Nagpur. She was forced to go to Pune from Nagpur and then from Pune to Hoshiarpur. Claiming that she has been harassed physically and mentally, she again filed the complaint.

(2.) APPREHENDING arrest, the petitioner moved an application for pre -arrest bail before the Sessions Court, Hoshiarpur. His application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was adamant not to comply the orders of the court and there are chances of tampering with the evidence and the jewellery articles were yet to be recovered.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner claims that the petitioner is Post -Graduate and is working as a Software Consultant in a multi national company. The petitioner had made every effort to save the marriage. Counsel further submits that the allegation of demand of dowry and money is baseless as the complainant has herself withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1.10 lacs from August 26, 2013 to August 31, 2013 at Hoshiarpur as per the bank accounts statement of petitioner. It is the complainant, who has been leaving the matrimonial home from time to time. All the dowry articles have been recovered. He has referred to the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, wherein it is mentioned that on account of lack of communication between the petitioner and his counsel before District Court, the passport could not be deposited. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this court.