Allowed

Ram Karan v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2009CRM-M/5085/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Process Server, was facing arrest for preparing a false service report in a matrimonial dispute. The High Court granted him pre-arrest bail, noting that the divorce decree based on his report had been set aside and he had already appeared in the private complaint.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail to execute on furnishing bail bonds to satisfaction of Rs 50000 with one surety.

Ram Karan Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Cr.Misc. NO. M 5085 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Cr.Misc. NO. M 5085 of 2009

¶5

DATE OF DECISION 21.5.2009

Ram Karan

......PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

¶10

......RESPONDENTS

¶11

PRESENT: Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate Mr. Rattan Brar, AAG, Hry Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶12

M.M.S.BEDI,J.

¶13

The petitioner apprehends arrest in a private complaint filed by respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner was responsible for preparing a false service report in a matrimonial case while serving as a Process Server.

¶14

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition for pre-arrest bail contending that on the basis of false report in a matrimonial case given by the petitioner, the life of the complainant has been ruined and that it has given an unreasonable benefit to her husband to remarry on the basis of ex-parte decree of divorce.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has now retired, who is alleged to have given a false report of service of the complainant in a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been informed that the decree of divorce obtained on the basis of non compliance of ex-parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has now been set aside.

¶16

In view of the subsequent event and the fact that the petitioner

¶17

Cr.Misc. NO. M 5085 of 2009

¶18

¶19

has already put in appearance in a private complaint, he can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail.

¶20

The petition is allowed and the petitioner will be released on bail in the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the condition that he will not absent himself during the entire period of trial without any sufficient cause and that he will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the proceeding by delaying tactics.

Ram Karan v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Karan v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maha Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Memuna Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harjinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Joga Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jasbir Singh Vs Mohinder Singh and Anr.

Tilak Raj Vs State of Punjab and Anr.