CRM-M-7594-2025 1 204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7594-2025 Date of decision: 22.05.2025 SAHIL SAKHUJA ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Tanvir Singh Attariwala, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** AMARJOT BHATTI , J. Petitioner has filed present petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to the investigating officer to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail in FIR No.78, dated 10.10.2024, under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Women, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1). 2. As per facts of the case, complainant Aina Juneja filed written complaint against her husband Sahil Sakhuja husband and other members of in-laws family for maltreatment on account of dowry articles and for turning her out from the matrimonial home. She stated that her marriage was performed with Sahil Sakhuja on 16.07.2019 at Ludhiana. Her parents had performed marriage as per the demand of accused persons and had spent about Rs.20 lacs. They were given gold ornaments, valuable clothes, huge cash amount as shagun jewellery for the petitioner, expensive clothes electronic items, furniture etc. as detailed in the FIR. Her parents had given MONIKA RANI 2025.05.27 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7594-2025 2 Rs.72,000/- for electric scooter. After few days of marriage, the accused persons started showing their true colours. They were complaining about the quality and quantity of dowry articles. She tried to adjust in the matrimonial home. She further came to know that her husband was addicted to drugs. Her husband was running a shop of electrical and electronic goods and he was also getting income from a resort at Manali. Even then, she was not provided any expenses. Her husband abused her and used to beat her under the influence of intoxicants. She has narrated various incidents which took place in the matrimonial home regarding maltreatment given to her even during her pregnancy. She gave birth to a baby girl on 17.03.2021 but nobody came to see the child. They repeated their previous behaviour. Despite convening the Panchayat accused persons have refused to settle her in the matrimonial home. Finally, the present complaint was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he has joined the investigation. All dowry articles are already recovered except the alleged jewellery. Infact she had taken away all her jewellery and Istridhan while leaving the matrimonial home. There was no maltreatment to the complainant in the matrimonial home. All allegations are false. He will abide by the terms of bail order, therefore his anticipatory bail application may be allowed. 4. Bail application is opposed by learned counsel representing State assisted by the counsel for respondent No.2. Detailed status report has been filed. It is submitted stated FIR has been registered after proper inquiry. Earlier he had filed anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Ludhiana and he was granted interim relief vide order dated 05.11.2024. He joined investigation on 21.11.2024. Finally his anticipatory bail application was declined by passing detailed order dated 07.01.2025. In the case in hand, Istridhan belonging to the complainant is yet to be recovered. The articles got MONIKA RANI 2025.05.27 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7594-2025 3 recovered by the mother-in-law of the complainant are detailed in Annexure R-1. However, the gold ornaments given at the time of marriage as detailed in Annexure R-2 are yet to be recovered. Petitioner did not cooperate with the Investigating Agency. Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 5. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record. Some of dowry articles were got recovered by mother of petitioner Annexure P-1. It is a matter of record that initially petitioner was granted interim relief when he filed anticipatory bail application before Sessions Court. But finally it was declined by passing detailed order dated 07.01.2025 Annexure P-3. During the pendency of present anticipatory bail, again interim relief was granted for amicable settlement of dispute and it was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre but no fruitful result could be achieved. Till date interim relief continued but even then there was no effort on the part of petitioner to cooperate with the Investigating Agency for the recovery of remaining dowry articles consisting of gold ornaments etc. as detailed in the list tagged with the status report (Annexure R-2). Recovery of dowry articles is material to complete the investigation. 6. In the light of aforesaid factual position, I am not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same is accordingly declined. 7. Interim order in favour of petitioner stands vacated. (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 22.05.2025 monika 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes /No 2. Whether reportable : Yes /No MONIKA RANI 2025.05.27 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document