(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.132 dated 06.12.2018 registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 of IPC at Police Station Women, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.
(2.) The petitioner is the husband of the complainant. The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner on 22.01.2017 at Gurgaon. As per the complainant's version, though the marriage could have been arranged at Yamuna Nagar while booking a marriage palace, but for the convenience of the in-laws, the marriage palace was booked at Delhi, which is near to their (in-laws) house. Her father spent about Rs.10.5 lacs on the marriage palace, Rs.2.5 lacs on the purchase of gold items, Rs.4 lacs were spend for purchasing cloths, Rs.1 lac cash and Rs.1.5 lacs for bhaat ceremony. Before the marriage, the in-laws came to the house of the complainant in Yamuna Nagar for godh bharai ceremony and in this ceremony, about Rs.12 lacs were spent by the parents of the complainant. In the said ceremony, the in-laws did not bring Prince (petitioner herein) and when asked by the parents of the complainant as to why he was not brought, her mother-in-law Anju had replied that as the petitioner was not invited by the complainant's family, he could not come. However, her mother-in-law came with her brothers, her mother, her elder son and daughter. The petitioner was of about 2 quintals of weight and if the complainant is made to stand by the petitioner, she would look like his daughter. Complainant's mother did not see the petitioner and the in-laws had the apprehension in their mind that if the complainant's family will see him (petitioner), they will refuse for such matrimonial alliance on the plea that it is not a suitable match. On that very day of the ceremony, her mother-in-law had told the mother of the complainant that they will keep the complainant like their own daughter. The in-laws family was specifically asked for any demand in the marriage. However, after marriage, they treated the complainant like an animal and a servant in the house. They used to taunt the complainant's family that they have not given sufficient dowry to them and whatever dowry articles have been given in the marriage are of inferior quality. Her father has spent his whole retirement benefits in the marriage. The petitioner, on the instigation of his mother, used to say that he will not keep the complainant in the matrimonial house and will marry with a rich girl. A daughter was born to her. The complainant was not given proper food. Sometimes she has to sleep while drinking warm water. Her in-laws used to eat things by hiding from her. Her mother-in-law used to call her "maid". She was not allowed to talk with her mother. On 26.03.2017, she spoke to her mother and only then, her mother came to know that her daughter is in trouble in her in-laws' house. On 28.03.2017, her father came and took her with him and thereafter, her in-laws never made any call to her. Since she was treated badly at the matrimonial house by the petitioner-husband, the aforesaid FIR was registered against him at the behest of complainant.
(3.) Apprehending arrest in the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner approached the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri for grant of anticipatory bail, but considering the allegations of demand of dowry, maltreatment, cruelty and harassment to the complainant and the recovery of dowry articles and further, when the petitioner did not join the investigation, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 10.01.2019, declined his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.