SUDHIR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of his wife Manisha alleging that she was married to the petitioner on June 1, 2012. There are serious allegations of taunts and harassment on account of not brining adequate dowry. The complainant was allegedly physically tortured having not met the demand of Rs.20 lacs . The complainant was allegedly sexually assaulted under the influence of liquor. The allegations attracting provisions of Section 376, 377 IPC have been leveled against the petitioner.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the recoveries have already been effected in the present case. So far as the allegations under Section 377 IPC are concerned, it is submitted that these allegations have been levelled after a gap of two years as such these are apparently false on the face of it. Counsel relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another,2014 4 RAJ 187, alleging that the present case does not warrant custodial interrogation and that the petitioner cannot be permitted to be arrested in this case and he should be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the father of the complainant and her family members had assaulted a lady in their neighbourhood and an FIR has been registered against the complainant and his family members. Charges under Sections 323, 354-B, 506, 429, 511/ 34 IPC have been framed against the complainant and his family members.

(3.) Counsel for the complainant has intervened to oppose the petition for pre-arrest bail contending that the articles of dowry and the jewellary items given at the time of various marriage functions are yet to be recovered.