406 is misappropriation of articles/ property given to the accused. So why is bail rejected on basis of 406, as this amounts to admission that actually the streedhan and other articles are with the accused, so its already decision being made without any trial "instructions like recovery of article need not be given while considering 438 petition as it assumes as if dowry articles have indeed been given"
But 406 can also be applied for streedhan, which she can say is still with in laws.
Also, I would like to get views of all on the below 3 issues:
1) Should the complainant in FIR mention, date time / details when were the articles or jewellery given to accused.
2) Would 406 not be applicable when there is misappropriation of articles given, just giving them itself should not constitute 406
3) Justice Dhingra gave clear guidelines that case should be registered only when list is as per DP act. No session court even follows it nor the police, so is it reasonable to assume that high court judgements have no bearing on session court judges or the police?
