TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.139 dated 3.3.2014 under sections 498 -A, 406, 506 I.P.C, registered at Police Station, City Yamunanagar. On 2.5.2014, while issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed by this Court: - "The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 139 dated 03.03.2014, under Sections 498 -A, 406, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station City Yamunanagar. Counsel would submit that as per complainant's version an incident had taken place on 16.12.2013, wherein she had been given beating by the husband i.e. the present petitioner as also other members of her in -laws. Counsel would contend that the allegations are totally false and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. To substantiate such assertion, counsel would advert to DDR No. 40 dated 20.01.2014 at Police Station Manimajra recorded on the statement of the complainant and wherein, there was no mention of any occurrence of beating that took place on 16.12.2013. Counsel further submits that the petitioner, otherwise, is willing to join investigation. Notice of motion, returnable for 27.05.2014. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and he shall remain bound by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."
(2.) LEARNED State counsel upon instructions from ASI Subhash Chand would apprise the Court that the petitioner has otherwise joined investigation. Learned counsel for the complainant would vehemently oppose the present petition and would submit that there are categoric and serious allegations against the petitioner as regards harassment to the complainant on the pretext of demand of dowry. Counsel would contend that under such circumstances the concession of pre -arrest bail be not granted to the petitioner. Counsel further clarifies that D.D.R No.40 registered at Police Station, Manimajra recorded on the statement of the complainant is dated 20.12.2013 and not on 20.1.2014 as had been asserted by the counsel for the petitioner and recorded in the notice of motion order.
(3.) BE that as it may, it would be apposite to notice that as per allegations contained in the F.I.R the complainant had been given beatings by the husband as also other members of the family on 16.12.2013. On the other hand, a perusal of the D.D.R dated 20.12.2013 at Annexure P -2 which is not disputed by learned counsel for the complainant would reveal that there are allegations against the present petitioner i.e. husband as also the mother -in -law as regards torture for bringing insufficient dowry after marriage but such D.D.R which was recorded on the statement of the complainant on 20.12.2013 does not make any reference whatsoever to an incident which had allegedly taken place four days prior thereto i.e. on 16.12.2013 with regard to the beatings that she had suffered.;