The Delhi High Court has observed that the mere fact that recovery of Istridhan is to be made from a person cannot be the sole ground for arresting him for offences under Sections 498-A (related to dowry demand) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the IPC.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that in such cases, police are empowered under CrPC to conduct searches of premises of the accused.
” C ustodial interrogation of the Petitioner is being sought only for recovery of Istridhan. The recovery of Istridhan alone cannot be a reason to deny anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. The police are vested with sufficient powers under the Cr.P.C to conduct searches of premises, ” the Court observed.
Thereby, it granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an FIR registered by his wife alleging that the petitioner, her mother-in-law and both her sisters-in-law had insulted, beaten, pressurized, harassed and tortured her for more dowry and threatened that if the she wanted a peaceful life, her father must further arrange a dowry amount of Rs. 50 Lacs.
Furthermore, it was alleged that the petitioner had forcibly taken her Istridhan and given it to his mother. It was also stated that in 2017, the petitioner fought with the complainant and threw her out of the house and that her passport, ID and clothes was also with him.
On the other hand, a Complaint was filed by the petitioner in 2018, levelling allegations against his wife and her family members. It was alleged that his wife was not happy with her marriage and used to abuse him. He also stated that he was threatened of dire consequences by his wife’s father who works as an officer in Delhi Police Department.
“The Petitioner is accused of offence under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC. The perusal of the status report shows that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is being sought only for recovery of Istridhan. The recovery of Istridhan alone cannot be a reason to deny anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, ” the Court said.
The Court added that there was nothing on record to show that the Petitioner and his family were in such a position that they would be able to threaten the witnesses.
“It is trite law that the Police Officer before arresting the accused who is accused of offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a period of seven years has to be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent a person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him by disclosing such facts to the Courts or the Police Officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured, ” the Court said.
Furthermore, it was observed that there are cross-complaints in the matter.
The pre-arrest bail plea was accordingly allowed.
Case Title: POORAN SINGH v. STATE OF DELHI
