BHARAT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE epitome of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition, for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail filed by the main accused (husband), emanating from the record and as claimed by the prosecution, is that the marriage of complainant Sonika Sharma, daughter of Krishan Kumar (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with petitioner Bharat Sharma son of Sham Lal, on 28.5.2006, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies in village Bainspur. Her parents were stated to have spent more than Rs.10 lacs and gave gold ornaments, weighing 8 tolas, including TV, Fridge, Washing machine, cooler, bed, clothes, utensils and other household articles. At the time of "Shagun" ceremony, which was performed two days prior to the marriage, the petitioner and his other family members had demanded Royal Enfield motorcycle, which was given to them by her parents. Still, the accused were not satisfied. The complainant claimed that after some days of the marriage, petitioner and his other co -accused started taunting her for bringing less dowry and demanded car, gold set for mother -in -law and gold chain for brother -in -law. She could not fulfill their illegal demand of dowry on account of paucity of funds with her parents. Consequently, her father convened a Biradari panchayat and tried to pacify the accused but in vain.

(2.) LEVELING a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the FIR, in all, according to the complainant that the petitioner initially demanded the pointed motorcycle, which was given to him. Thereafter, he started demanding a car, gold ornaments, dowry articles, taunted and severely treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner and his other co -accused, vide FIR No.94 dated 21.7.2014 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A and 406 IPC by the police of Police Station Nangal, District Ropar in the manner described here -in -above.

(3.) HAVING exercised his right of bail and remained unsuccessful before Sessions Judge, now the petitioner has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail in the indicated criminal case in this Court.