AMAR DUTT,J - (1.) THE marriage between Neeraj son of petitioner No. 1 and Paraul which took place on 21.7.2000 with great pomp and show lasted only 3 months after the differences that arose, between the couple forced them to separate. The circumstances leading to the separation ultimately culminated in the FIR being lodged on a written complaint which purports to have been forwarded under the signatures of Shri Promod Kumar Gupta and Parul. The complaint which incorporates the details of the harassment suffered by the wife at the hands of the family of Neeraj and attributes specific roles to various members of the family of her in-laws, is accompanied by a list of the articles that are alleged to have been handed over on behalf of her parents to various members of the family of her in-laws which according to the complaint were still in the custody of the family of Neeraj and were not being returned to the relations of the wife despite requests being made for the same.
(2.) THE petitioners seek anticipatory bail in the ground that the wife is not coming forward as the primary complaint and the family of Neeraj including the petitioners have already returned whatever articles of dowry were given to the boy at the time of the marriage. It is also submitted that in these circumstances the custody of the petitioner would not be required and the complaint incorporated in the FIR is being primarily pursed in order to harass and humiliate the petitioners so as to improve the bargaining position of the girl's side whenever any petition on the matrimonial side is moved before a competent Court. On behalf of the State and more so on behalf of the complainant santicipatory bail is being opposed on the ground that the girl was beaten within weeks of the marriage which act was repeated on the slightest pretext. Apart from this, according to the complainant it was submitted that though talks for return of dowry have been taking place yet nothing concrete materalised between the parties in this direction. It is also submitted that in the FIR certain allegations have been made regarding some naked photographs of the girl having been taken by the husband as also an attempt had been made to poison her. Apart from the fact that it may be necessary to recover the tablet with which the complainant was sought to be poisoned, it would also be necessary that not only photographs but also the negatives thereof are secured by the Investigating Agency so as to avoid their being mis-used by the petitioner and his family at any later stage. Asserting all this the counsel for the respondents have opposed the extension of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners as the grant of the same was likely to prejudice the case of the respondents irreparably.
(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.;