Recovery of stridhan alone cannot be reason to deny anticipatory bail: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that recovery of stridhan (woman's estate) alone cannot be the sole ground to arrest a person for offences under Section 498A (cruelty including dowry demands) and Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or to deny him anticipatory bail [Pooran Singh v. State of Delhi]. .In this regard, Justice Subramonium Prasad ordered,"...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 mere fact that the recovery of Istridhan cannot be the sole ground for arresting a person for an offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.".The Court was dealing with an anticipatory bail plea filed by a man who had been accused by his wife of committing offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. It was alleged that he had forcibly taken his wife's stridhan, passport, ID and clothes. As per the complaint, the petitioner, his mother and his sisters insulted, beat, pressurized, harassed and tortured the wife for more dowry and threatened that if she wanted a peaceful life, her father must arrange a dowry amount of ₹50 lakh.The respondent wife had even alleged that her husband had illegally procured her SIM card from the service provider and uploaded her pictures on social media websites. It was further alleged that the petitioner had sent abusive and insulting messages from her social media accounts to her friends with malafide intentions..On the other hand, the petitioner had filed a complaint in 2018 accusing his wife and her family members of abusing and threatening him on account of her father's position as an officer in the Delhi Police. It was also alleged that the wife left the matrimonial house without giving any reason and resided with her parents..While granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the Court noted that there were cross-complaints and that there was nothing to support the argument that the petitioner and his family were in a position to threaten the witnesses.Advocate SV Rateria appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Amit Chadha appeared for the State, while Advocate Mallika Parmar represented the wife..[Read order]