- (1.) Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M. No. M-999 of 2012 The present petition filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 68, dated 21.7.2011, under Sections 307,498A, 34, IPC read with Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') registered at Police Station, Fathudhinga, District Kapurthala. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order dated 3.1.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioners for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Briefly stated, marriage of complainant was performed with petitioner No. 2-Satwinder Singh on 10.12.2008. She lost both her parents. Marriage was performed by her other relatives. They are five brothers and sisters and she is the eldest one. As per the allegations just after 3-4 months of the marriage, petitioners started harassing the complainant on account of dowry. In the month of December 2009, petitioner No. 2 had dropped the complainant in the street in front of her house and never returned. Panchayat was convened and due to intervention of the Panchayat she was sent to matrimonial home. However, just after one month, harassment again started. Thereafter complainant again came to the house of her parents due to fear. The matter went to Women Cell, Kapurthala, on the application of the complainant and she was again sent to the house of her in-laws. A buffalo was also given by relatives of the complainant to the family of the petitioners. However, there was another demand of Rs. 40,000, which was somehow arranged by one of the uncles, i.e., Tarsem Singh and gave to the petitioners and despite that they were not satisfied. There is specific instance of physical violence having been committed upon the complainant by the petitioners. On 19.7.2011 the complainant was given beatings and petitioners tried to give her poison. Cruelty is to the extent that divorce petition was filed by husband of the complainant just after one year of the marriage.
(2.) It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that offence under Section 31 of the Act is not a cognizable offence. It is further contended that allegations are general in nature. It is also contended that present FIR has been lodged as a counter-blast to the petition for divorce filed by present petitioner No. 2. It is also contended that on inquiry offence under Section 307, IPC was not found to be made out by the police. However, there are serious allegations against petitioner-accused. Despite harassment on account of dowry, which started just after two months of marriage, there are specific instances of acts of physical violence being committed upon the complainant by all the petitioners. Complainant had lost both of her parents before her marriage and the marriage was performed by her relatives. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners Hardeep Singh, Satwinder Singh and Surjit Kaur for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.;