- (1.) The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that marriage of complainant Neha (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with petitioner Vikas on 8.7.2010, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Karnal. Her parents were stated to have given dowry articles and gold jewellery beyond their reach by spending a sum of Rs 50 lacs on the marriage. An amount of Rs 16,50,000/- was claimed to have given to her father-in-law in lieu of car and furniture, but the accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles. According to the complainant that after some days of the marriage, the accused started harassing, taunting and gave beatings to her. They also demanded Fortune car and Rs 10 lacs in cash. The complainant telephonically narrated the entire episode to her father, brother and relatives. They convened a panchayat on 28.10.2010 at the house of the accused. It was claimed by the complainant that her sister-in-law (Nanand) used to visit her parental home at Karnal and taunted that she will arrange another marriage of her brother.
(2.) Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that all the accused have misappropriated, demanded more dowry articles, cash and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner (husband), parents-in-law, brother-in-law Vivek (Jeth), sister-in-law Aasha Mittal (Jethani) and sister-in-law Kavita Goyal (Nanand) of the complainant, by means of FIR No. 53 dated 14.5.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC by the Police of Police Station Ismilabad, District Kurukshetra, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr. PC.
(3.) Having exercised and lost his right before the Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioner has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr. PC.;