MADHAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Madhav, son of Ram Kishan, resident of village Dhawana, District Rewari, who alongwith his parents and other family members, has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 494, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 153, dated 30.7.2013, registered at Police Station, Kosli, District Rewari.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after marriage, the complainant could not adjust herself with the petitioner and, as such, she was always in a mood to falsely implicate the petitioner and his family members. Resultantly, the present FIR was registered involving all the adult family members from the petitioner's side. He further contends that the parents of the petitioner were arrested and the police recovered 50 items enshrined in the recovery memo enclosed with the police file. He further contends that vide order dated 23.8.2013, the petitioner was granted ad-interim bail with a direction to appear before the investigating officer for joining the investigation and in compliance thereof the petitioner did appear before the investigating agency. He also pointed out that as many as nine articles, as mentioned in the separate recovery memo, were recovered. The petitioner and his family members are now no more in possession of any other article belonging to the complainant. He further contends that the petitioner has also joined the investigation on several other occasions and cooperated with the investigating agency. He also contends that every time the complainant is putting up fresh demands from the petitioner so that his prayer for anticipatory bail is declined. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Bhupinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2013 4 AICLR 793, a judgement of this Court wherein it was held that the provisions contained in Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, have not been enacted to get the alleged dowry articles recovered. The said judgement was passed while placing reliance on Jagdish Thakkar v. State of Delhi,1993 CriCC 103 and Uday Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001 1 RCR(Cri) 354.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Ram Kishan of Police Station, Kosli, District Rewari, very fairly states that except for recovery of few gold articles, the petitioner is no more required for custodial interrogation by the investigating agency. He fairly concedes that the petitioner has joined the investigation thrice and cooperated with the investigating agency.