DEEPAK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition that has been filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 119 dtd. 12/10/2016 under Ss. 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Women Police Station, Ludhiana.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the petitioner and the complainant were married in the year 2011. It is alleged that on account of matrimonial difference she was turned out of the matrimonial home, which resulted in registration of the aforesaid FIR. The petitioner herein had applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana which came to be rejected primarily on the ground that the gold articles lying in his possession were not recovered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is ready to face trial. He further submits that while leaving the matrimonial home the complainant had taken away her clothes and jewellery belonging to her as well as the gold articles that were given in the marriage. He places reliance upon Bhupinder Singh etc. vs. State of Punjab, 2014(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 109, Beant Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 381, Prit Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(5) R.C.R. (Criminal) and Anil Rajput and others vs. State of Haryana, 2010(6) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1126 while arguing that there are catena of judgments of this Court which have clearly laid down that anticipatory bail could not be denied or rejected on the ground that dowry articles have not been recovered from the accused.