Ruchi Singla vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1388 P&H

CRM-M-10040-2022 (O&M)                                                         -1-

108             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-M-10040-2022 (O&M)
                                                Date of Decision: 9.3.2022

Ruchi Singla                                          ..... Petitioner
                                    Versus

State of Punjab and another                           .......Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:        Mr. Beant Singh Seemar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via

Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per

instructions.

Prayer in the present petition is for cancellation of regular bail

granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 18.2.2022 by the Court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in a case FIR No.12 dated

19.1.2021 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station City-II,

Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the FIR in question was

lodged by the complainant Ruchi Singla, wherein, allegations against

respondent No.2 and her in-laws regarding harassment and cruelty to the

petitioner on account of demand of dowry were made. The investigation

commenced and thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected

the prayer of respondent No.2 for grant of anticipatory bail, however, this

Court firstly granted interim bail to him and ultimately on 20.1.2022

dismissed the same. It has been submitted that now the regular bail granted

by learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be recalled, as respondent

1 of 3

CRM-M-10040-2022 (O&M) -2-

No.2 does not deserve the same in the facts and circumstances of the case. It

has been submitted that anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 was declined

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but this Court granted interim bail

to him by referring the parties to the Mediation Centre. As the complainant-

wife was seriously ill, the respondent-husband was directed to pay the

medical expenses but he never paid the same and hence, his interim bail

granted by this Court was declined and thereafter, the petitioner was

arrested. It has been submitted that the respondent-husband has failed to

effect any recovery of dowry articles and the Court had granted the bail only

on basis of presentation of challan by the Investigating Agency. He submits

that there are prima facie allegations of cruelty committed by the

respondent-husband and hence, the bail granted to him is against the law

settled.

Heard.

Needless to say that the petitioner before this Court is the wife

of respondent No.2, who is praying for cancellation of bail granted to the

respondent-husband. During the pendency of the anticipatory bail of

respondent-No.2 before this court, the parties were referred to the Mediation

Centre on the assurance given by the respondent-husband for paying the

medical expenses. However, despite the opportunities given, he failed to

comply with the same and hence, the anticipatory bail was declined.

Thereafter, the respondent-husband was arrested on 7.2.2022. The

respondent-husband had joined the investigation on earlier occasions itself,

however, now the investigation already stands completed and the challan

under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed in the Court of competent

jurisdiction. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that

2 of 3

CRM-M-10040-2022 (O&M) -3-

he has not got effected the recovery of the dowry articles in itself cannot be

a ground for cancellation of the bail granted to him. It is held by the catena

of judgments by this Court in various cases that while granting bail the

Court is to strike a balance between the personal liberty and overall interest

of the society. So far as the law regarding cancellation of bail is concerned,

same is entirely different from that of the law pertaining to grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any kind of misuse of the

concession granted to the respondent-husband. After hearing the arguments

of learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I find no

infirmity in the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in

granting bail to the respondent-husband. Hence, the petition being devoid of

any merits, is hereby dismissed.

                                               (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
9.3.2022                                           JUDGE
sharmila
                   Whether Speaking/Reasoned   :     Yes/No
                   Whether Reportable          :     Yes/No




                               3 of 3