Dismissed

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2010CRM-M/14288/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail. The Court observed that since the accused had been granted regular bail by the trial court and the case was listed for prosecution evidence, no grounds for cancellation were made out, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed. No grounds for cancellation were found given the framing of charges and petitioners release on regular bail.

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-14288 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.8.2010

Balwinder Singh

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.......Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶9

Present: Mr.S.K.Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

Mr.R.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

This petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 83 dated 4.4.2008, under Sections 406/ 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar Sunam District Sangrur.

¶15

On 20.2.2009, the following order was passed by this Court on a bail application filed by respondent No.2:-

¶16

“Petitioner has filed this petition under Section

¶17

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of

¶18

Criminal Misc. No.M-14288 of 2010 (O&M) -2anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.83 dated 4.4.2008 under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Sadar Sunam.

¶19

At the time of issuance of notice of motion dated 9.5.2008, the following order passed:-

¶20

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case the dispute arose between the parties on the very first day after marriage. The marriage took place on 3.12.2007. The allegations are that the moment the daughter of the complainant came, a demand of dowry was raised. It is a case of non compatibility. The father of the petitioner was arrested and has been released on regular bail. The dowry articles have been recovered by the police, some of them were lying in the packed condition at the place of Bichola and some were even lying with the complainant.

¶21

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 1.8.2008.

¶22

In the meantime, in case of arrest,

¶23

Criminal Misc. No.M-14288 of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶24

the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶25

Vide order dated 5.12.2008, the case was ordered to be listed before Mediation and Conciliation Centre. During mediation proceedings on 6.1.2009, parties agreed to live together peacefully.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State who is assisted by HC Bhant Singh and counsel for the complainant has submitted that now the complainant is residing in the house of the petitioner.

¶27

Accordingly, interim bail granted by this Court on 9.5.2009 is made absolute.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the offence under Section 406 IPC has also been added in the FIR.

¶29

The Registry is directed to make necessary addition in the head note of the petition in this

¶30

Criminal Misc. No.M-14288 of 2010 (O&M) -4-

¶31

regard.”

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bail had been granted only because the matter had been compromised.

¶33

Learned State counsel has submitted that respondent No.2 has since been allowed regular bail by the trial Court and the case is now listed for prosecution evidence after framing of the charge.

¶34

Keeping in view the fact that now respondent No.2 has been released on regular bail and charge has been framed against him by the trial Court and the case is listed for prosecution evidence, no ground for cancellation of bail is made out.

¶35

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶36

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶37

anita

¶38

August 20, 2010

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daljit Kumar @ Bobby etc. Vs State of Punjab

Manoj Kumar Alias Mouji and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Vanita Narula Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sewa Singh Vs Mohinder Singh

Paras Ram Vs Tarsem Singh & Anr.

Umrao Singh Vs Basti Ram and Ors.