Dismissed

Piara Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2010CRM-M/14629/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC regarding an FIR under IPC Sections 498-A, 406, 494, and 120-B alleging dowry harassment and bigamy. The court found no ground for bail due to the necessity of custodial interrogation as recovery of ornaments was pending.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; petitioners required for custodial interrogation.

Piara Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M- 14629 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.7.2010

¶3

Piara Singh and another

......Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

.......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶9

Present: Mr.R.S.Jhand , Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G.Punjab.

¶11

Mr.Parvez Chugh, Advocate,for the complainant.

¶12

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 52 dated 13.4.2010 under Sections 406/ 498-A/ 494/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), registered at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur.

¶15

The allegations against the petitioners are that at the time of marriage of the complainant with Balwinder Singh on 15.2.1998, her parents had given sufficient Istridhan including gold jewellery to her. The complainant and Balwinder Singh were blessed with two children. Thereafter, Balwinder Singh died in the year 2002 and the complainant was re-married with the younger brother of Balwinder Singh i.e. Jaswant Singh. The parents of the

¶16

Criminal Misc. No.M- 14629 of 2010 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

complainant gave further articles by way of Istridhan including gold jewellery to the complainant. However, the in-laws family of the complainant started raising a demand of car. The said demand could not be met and the complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial home along with her elder son after giving beatings to her. The petitioners performed second marriage of their son Jaswant Singh on 2.9.2009 without getting a divorce from the complainant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 18.5.2010, the petitioners have joined investigation.

¶20

Learned State counsel, who is assisted by ASI Davinder Singh and learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that although the petitioners have joined investigation but the recovery of the gold ornaments has not been effected so far. The petitioners are required for custodial interrogation.

¶21

Keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is made out. The petitioners are required for custodial interrogation

¶22

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶23

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶24

July 14, 2010 anita

Piara Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piara Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

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

Saneh Sharma @ Saneh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Bhoop Singh Vs State of Haryana

Jagtar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sudhir Kheterpal & Anr. Vs F.C.I. & Anr.

Baldev Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

James Bhatti Vs State of Punjab