SHALINI RAJAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant petitioner Smt. Shalini Rajawat has filed this application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Sidharth Singh, respondent No. 2 by this Court on 11.11.2010. It has been prayed that the cancellation application be allowed and the order of anticipatory bail passed by this Court on 11.11.2010 be set aside. Further, it has been prayed that the accused be ordered to be arrested in the present case. On a complaint lodged by the petitioner, a first information report (124/2010) came to be registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) for the offences under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. The petitioner had made detail averments in the complaint alleging that she had been harassed, demand of dowry was made and her dowry articles have been retained by the accused persons. Alongwith the report, a list of dowry articles was also attached which included gold jewellery, diamond jewellery, car, cloths jewellery which was given by the relatives at the time of marriage and gift items. After commencement of the investigation in furtherance of the report lodged against the accused, he apprehended arrest and therefore application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (10231/2010) was filed by him for grant of anticipatory bail. After hearing the parties at length, this Court had allowed the application for anticipatory bail on 11.11.2010 subject to a condition. It was ordered that the accused petitioner (respondent No. 2 herein) shall handover the dowry articles to the Investigating Officer. After receiving the said articles from the accused, the Investigating Officer was to handover the same to the complainant.

(2.) The primary grievance of the complainant in the present application is that the accused respondent has not handed over complete dowry articles which was given to her at the time of marriage. It is also the case of the petitioner that so far as the dowry articles of jewellery are concerned, the accused had given artificial jewellery and the Investigating Officer had taken the same even through the complainant had refused. Therefore, the case of the complainant petitioner is that the accused respondent has failed to fulfill the condition levied by this Court while granting the anticipatory bail and as such, the concession of anticipatory bail be withdrawn and the order dated 11.11.2010 be set aside.

(3.) It has been submitted by the counsel for the complainant petitioner that order dated 11.11.2010 passed by this Court was very categorically that grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner was subject to the condition that the petitioner shall handover the dowry articles to the Investigating Officer, who after receiving the same shall give them to the complainant petitioner. He has referred to the contents of the first information report as well as the list of dowry articles attached to it for emphasising the fact that number of articles were given at the time of marriage which included the gold and diamond jewellery. He has also referred to the bills/cash memos of the showrooms from where the said jewellery was purchased by the parents of the complainant wife and the same has not at all been returned by the accused. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that- by returning the artificial jewellery in place of gold jewellery, the accused has not only violated the condition imposed while granting anticipatory bail but had also committed a fraud on the Court. He has further submitted that the Investigating Officer ought to have asked the accused to return gold jewellery and on his failure to do so, he should not have released the petitioner on execution of bonds in furtherance of the order of granting anticipatory bail. Moreover, the Investigating Officer should have immediately approached this Court intimating that the accused has not complied with the order passed on 11.11.2010 and has returned artificial jewellery in place of gold and diamond jewellery. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of S. Shanmugam vs. State by Inspector of Police & Ors., 2005 2 Cri 596 and Sarita vs. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor &Anr.,2011 1 CrLR 353.