High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Non-Recovery of Dowry Articles Not A Ground To Cancel Anticipatory Bail: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Similar News