Allowed

Mohd. Mohsin Ansari v. U.T. Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Sept 2010CRM-M/21143/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court order granting bail to the petitioner in a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC. The court observed that performance of the Nikah ceremony was admitted and allowed bail without expressing opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was allowed bail subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh.

Mohd. Mohsin Ansari Vs U.T. Chandigarh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M- 21143 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2010

¶3

Mohammad Mohsin Ansari

......Petitioner

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh

.......Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶9

Present: Mr.Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Rampal Verma, Advocate for Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for U.T.Chandigarh.

¶11

¶12

SABINA, J.

¶13

This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 7 dated 10.1.2010, under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B and Section 376 (added later on) of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh.

¶14

The FIR in question was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix alleging that the prosecutrix had passed 6^th Class examination. On 4.1.2010, he was informed at about 8.00 p.m. that the prosecutrix had left the house at 6.00 p.m. but had not returned thereafter. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that the

¶15

Criminal Misc. No.M- 21143 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶16

petitioner had enticed away the prosecutrix with an intention to solemnize marriage with her.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 2.2.2010. The petitioner and the prosecutrix were having a love affair and since they were belonging to different religions, the prosecutrix, after conversion, performed Nikah ceremony with the petitioner on 8.1.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Administration, who is assisted by ASI Kuldeep Singh, on the other hand, has opposed this petition but has not been able to contradict the performance of Nikah by the petitioner and the prosecutrix.

¶19

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be just and expedient to release the petitioner on bail. The fact that whether the petitioner is guilty of the alleged offence or not would more appropriately be gone into and considered during trial.

¶20

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate Chandigarh.

¶21

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶22

September 07, 2010 anita

Mohd. Mohsin Ansari v. U.T. Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Mohsin Ansari v. U.T. Chandigarh

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

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

Pushap Kumar and Anr. Vs Hans Raj

Tota Ram Vs Mahender & Anr.

Partap Chand Vs U.T.Chandigarh

Sarbjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Liyakat Vs State of Haryana