BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

(2.) The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No. 77/2019 of Police Station Mahila Thana District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A, 406, 323, 377, 354 IPC. He has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations of cruelty and harassment for dowry against the petitioner are absolutely false. It is submitted that the marriage of the petitioner and the complainant was solemnized on 7/6/2014 and out of their wedlock one child was born. It is also submitted that at the time of their marriage, the petitioner had not demanded any dowry and he accepted whatever was given by her in-laws. It is further submitted that there was some minor dispute between the petitioner and the complainant as the complainant was having objection about the visit of the petitoner to the house of his mother who was living separately. It is submitted that earlier the complainant had assaulted the petitioner and for that the petitioner filed a complaint at Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu on 23/8/2018 and thereafter the relatives of the complainant and petitioner had intervened and settled the matter amicably. At that time the complainant gave in writing in the Police Station, Rajgarh that she would not misbehave with the petitioner or his family members and would not threat them to commit suicide and would also treat them properly. It is also submitted that soon thereafter again the complainant started troubling to the petitioner and his family members and ultimately she left the house of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It is submitted that later on, the complainant started living with the petitioner but after some time again she left the house of the petitioner, and son of the petitioner remained with him. The complainant had approached the concerned Court for the purpose of custody of son and the son was handed over to the complainant.