HARDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of provisions of Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the directions dated 22.4.1999 the petitioner has already joined investigation. Moreover, the petitioner is ready to pay the bank guarantee to the tune of such amount equivelent to the price of dowry articles, allegedly, given by the wife and that the petitioner will always join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Agency.

(2.) Bail application has been opposed on behalf of the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the petitioner is a main pivot in the crime as he has embezzled the dowry articles. He has treated the complainant with cruelty.

(3.) I have considered the submission. The offer even may be treated as a genuine, still the sting of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not stand diluted. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail as his custodial interrogation is necessary in public interest. I dismiss his bail application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, with the direction to the learned trial Court/Court of Sessions to decide the application for regular bail of Shri Hardip Singh within a week. Petitioner shall surrender himself before the police before submitting the application in the trial Court.