Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Can't deny bail solely for non-recovery of dowry articles: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Assertion came as Justice Sumeet Goel confirmed the anticipatory bail earlier granted to a husband in a matrimonial dispute
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 16

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the non-recovery of dowry articles or ‘Istridhan’ in its entirety cannot be the sole basis for rejecting anticipatory bail plea.

Advertisement

The assertion came as Justice Sumeet Goel of the high court confirmed the anticipatory bail earlier granted to a husband in a matrimonial dispute.

He had moved the high court apprehending arrest in an FIR registered on May 6 for criminal breach of trust, subjecting a married woman to cruelty and another offence under Sections 406, 498-A and 34 of the IPC at Garhshankar police station in Hoshiarpur district. Advocates Saurav Bhatia and Apurva Walia contended on his behalf that dowry articles/Istridhan as alleged were not in his possession.

Advertisement

“The non-recovery of dowry articles/Istridhan in entirety cannot by itself be a cause for rejection of the present plea for anticipatory bail by the petitioner, especially when the State does not require his custodial interrogation on any other count except for effecting recovery of remaining dowry articles/Istridhan,” Justice Goel asserted.

In his detailed order, Justice Goel asserted specific dowry articles or Istridhan involved in the case and whether all the dowry articles have been recovered would essentially be gone into during the course of trial.

“No accentuating circumstances are decipherable from the factual matrix of the present case so as to direct the petitioner to deposit any amount towards the alleged non-recovery of complete dowry articles. No such misconduct by the petitioner has been pointed out which may dissuade this Court from confirming the interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner,” Justice Goel added.

The Bench, at the same time, clarified that the order would not be treated as “blanket” and be interpreted as granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It would be confined to the FIR and not operate in case of any other incident involving the commission of an offence.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper