The High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner faced serious allegations of causing a forced abortion and injuries in a domestic dispute. The court declined bail to avoid interfering with statutory police investigation powers.
Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was 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.
CRM No.M-26926 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:-15.10.2010
Vipan Dhawan son of Sham Sunder Dhawan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:Mr.M.K.Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab.
Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate for the complainant.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)
Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, petitioner Vipan Dhawan son of Sham Sunder Dhawan, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Deepak Dhawan (husband) and Promila Dhawan (mother-in-law), vide FIR No.9 dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 315, 316, 323, 324 and 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station 'D' Division, Amritsar, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.
CRM No.M-26926 of 2010 2
law. She brought her (complainant) down from the roof through stairs by force and by pulling her hair. As soon as, she came down, in the meantime, her husband and father-in-law started kicking on her stomach and her mother-in-law started beating her with an iron rod and caused injuries on her abdomen and back. The injuries caused by the accused culminated in the forced abortion of the complainant and a dead male child was born on 31.1.2010. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above.
CRM No.M-26926 of 2010 3
not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. Ultimately, it may seriously affect the process of investigation. An order of anticipatory bail should not be made to create an in-road to the statutory investigational power of the police. In my view, if the petitioner is allowed anticipatory bail, it is likely to occasion interference in the investigational power of the police, which is not legally permissible.
15.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of forced abortion and domestic violence?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State represented by the CBI v. Anil SharmaRelied on¶21
State represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal) 268 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vipan Dhawan
State of Punjab
Mehinder Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
