Non-Recovery of Dowry Articles Not A Ground To Cancel Anticipatory Bail: Punjab and Haryana High Court
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, presided over by Justice Sumeet Goel, has dismissed two criminal petitions seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents in a dowry harassment case. The petitions, filed by the victim’s father, contended that the anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, should be revoked due to non-recovery of dowry articles and alleged misuse of bail.
Background of the Case
The case centers around allegations of dowry harassment filed against the husband and his family by the victim, whose marriage took place on November 22, 2015. The First Information Report (FIR No. 32) was lodged on March 4, 2022, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 498-A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), along with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, granted anticipatory bail to the respondents on February 6, 2023.
Key Points:
Justice Sumeet Goel highlighted several key aspects in his ruling:
Non-Recovery of Dowry Articles: The court ruled that the non-recovery of dowry articles alone is not sufficient grounds for the cancellation of anticipatory bail. The recovery of such items should be addressed during the trial.
No Evidence of Misuse of Bail: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondents had misused the bail or attempted to influence witnesses.
Legal Precedents: The court referred to several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court rulings in Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) and Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, which establish that bail should not be canceled without clear evidence of its misuse.
Court Observations and Analysis
Justice Goel elaborated on the distinction between “cancellation of bail” and “setting aside a bail order.” He emphasized that cancellation of bail requires evidence of supervening circumstances such as the accused attempting to influence witnesses or committing another offense while on bail. In contrast, setting aside a bail order concerns whether the bail was granted based on irrelevant or perverse considerations.
In the present case, the court found that the Additional Sessions Judge’s order granting anticipatory bail was well-reasoned and did not suffer from non-application of judicial mind. The judge noted that the petitioner’s argument about the non-recovery of dowry articles does not meet the criteria for canceling bail, as established in previous rulings.
Conclusion
The High Court’s decision to dismiss the petitions underscores the importance of distinguishing between the grounds for granting bail and the conditions required to cancel it. This judgment reaffirms that anticipatory bail cannot be revoked solely based on the non-recovery of dowry items, especially in the absence of any evidence of misuse or influence over the witnesses by the respondents.
Date of Decision: May 17, 2024
XXXX vs. State of Haryana and another
