High Court dismissed anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry and forced abortion allegations, noting petitioners failed to comply with prior compromise terms.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed.
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.
Criminal Misc.No. M- 17707 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No. M- 17707 of 2010 Date of decision:- 06.7.2010
Amandeep Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present:Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the complainant.
RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral)
The present petition is under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 135 dated 04.6.2010, under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Khanna, District Ludhiana.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.
Marriage between the complainant and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 19.2.2009. It has been alleged that Rs.3,00,000/- were spent on the marriage of complainant by their parents as per their capacity. However, petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry and they started taunting her for bringing less dowry. Further allegations are that when she was pregnant, she was forcibly aborted in a hospital, where sister of the petitioner used to work.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners there was a compromise between the parties and that the petitioners are ready to abide by the said compromise.
Criminal Misc.No. M- 17707 of 2010
-2-
Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that the matter was inquired into by the Deputy Superintendent of Police after the compromise and it came during enquiry that petitioners have not complied with the terms of compromise and hence the present FIR was lodged against the petitioners after the inquiry.
In view of serious allegations against the petitioners-accused and in view of the fact, which came into light after the inquiry by the police that the petitioners have not complied with the terms of compromise, it is not such a case, in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused Amandeep Singh and Harjinder Kaur.
Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition for anticipatory bail to the petitioners-accused Amandeep Singh and Harjinder Kaur is dismissed.
July 06, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given failure to comply with compromise terms.
Whether serious allegations of dowry death and forced abortion justify denial of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amandeep Singh
Harjinder Kaur
State of Punjab
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
