MANPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.46 dated 14.04.2019 under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 323 IPC registered at Police Station Doraha, District Khanna.

(2.) The aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of respondent no.2-Manpreet Kaur, whose marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 14.04.2013 and a son namely Ishandeep Singh was born from this wedlock on 15.01.2014. As per the FIR, enough dowry and gold jewellery was given in the marriage to the petitioner and his family members. On 09.07.2013, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in order to purchase a Maruti car and her parents gave this amount to him. The parents of the complainant had also given fridge, furniture, cooler, RO, inverter etc. to the petitioner as per his demands. Thereafter, the petitioner started demanding a new car and a house, but when this demand could not satisfied, he started harassing the complainant. During her pregnancy, the petitioner, his mother and sister gave beatings to the complainant and punched her in the stomach. They said that they did not want any child from this marriage. The accused forcibly tried to get her child aborted. The parents of the complainant paid the medical expenses of Rs.1,10,000/- on her treatment. The petitioner and his family members kept on demanding the dowry. On 10.07.2016 at 7.30 P.M., the petitioner hit the complainant on her head with a heavy iron kara and got her injured. On 23.07.2016, the petitioner and mother-in-law of the complainant misbehaved with her and abused her parents. The petitioner kept on harassing the complainant in the rented house despite staying in a separate accommodation. The mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant kept on instigating the petitioner against her and on their false instigation, the petitioner used to beat her and stopped giving money for daily expenses.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.04.2013 and the allegations of demand of dowry after about six years of marriage are false. No recovery is required to effected from the petitioner and in view of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another 2014(2) ACJ 385, the petitioner is entitled to be admitted on bail.