Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a domestic dispute. Court affirms previously granted bail till challan submission and directs disbursement of security money to the complainant for inability to reconcile.
Pre-arrest bail affirmed till challan submission; Rs.25,000/- deposited to be disbursed to complainant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc.No.M-6292 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc. No. M-6292 of 2009
Date of Decision: 18 - 4 - 2009
Sarvan Kumar Bhasin @ Sawran Kumar Bhasin and another
.....Petitioners
v.
State of State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Amit Khatkar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.V.K.Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of
pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
On 5.3.2009, this Court had passed the following order:-
“Petitioner No.1 is father-in-law and petitioner No.2 is
mother-in-law of the complainant.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are willing to resolve the dispute amicably. Complainant can be rehabilitated in the matrimonial home or part gracefully. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on oral
Crl. Misc.No.M-6292 of 2009 [2]
prayer, complainant Aparajita Bhasin wife of Rohit Bhasin daughter of Yogdhyan Ahuja, resident of B-36, Preet Vihar, Delhi-92 be impleaded as respondent No.2.
Request of counsel for the petitioners is accepted.
Aparajita Bhasin be impleaded as respondent No.2.
Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioners are ready and willing to bear the expenses of engagement of counsel and causing of appearance of Aparajita Bhasin, complainant, in this Court.
To test their bonafide, let petitioners at first instance deposit Rs.25,000/- in the Registry of the Court which shall be disbursed to the complainant Aparajita Bhasin on her appearance in this Court.
On deposit of amount, notice of motion be issued for 20.3.2009.
Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, petitioners shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called for. Petitioners shall also abide by the conditions specified under Section 438 Cr.P.C.”
Today an effort was made by the counsel for the parties to resolve the dispute. Counsel for the parties have reported that it is not possible for the parties to return to their matrimonial home. It is further submitted that there is huge difference between the demand made by the estranged wife and the amount to be parted with by parents of the erring son. It has been submitted that son of the petitioners and husband of the
Crl. Misc.No.M-6292 of 2009 [3]
estranged wife was taken into custody by the police and was granted regular bail. In view of this, no custodial interrogation is required. Pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners is affirmed till submission of report(Challan) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the petitioners shall be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in this Court as per order dated 5.3.2009, shall be disbursed by the Registry to the estranged wife.
Petition is disposed off.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) April 18, 2009. JUDGE
RC
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to extend pre-arrest bail to petitioners in a domestic dispute where reconciliation failed?
Whether to direct discharge of deposited amount to the complainant wife?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sarvan Kumar Bhasin @ Sawran Kumar Bhasin and another
State of Haryana
Aparajita Bhasin
Kanwalsingh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
