Allowed

Barjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Aug 2010CRM-M/3365/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted absolute anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a matrimonial case involving 406 and 498-A IPC charges. The court made the interim bail absolute based on the parties' compromise, resumption of cohabitation, and withdrawal of a divorce petition filed by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by making the interim bail order absolute under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Barjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl.M.No.M-3365 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-3365 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2010

Barjinder Singh

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Barjinder Singh, petitioner in person.

¶12

Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G, Punjab.

¶13

Respondent No.2 in person with Mr.Roopak Bansal, Advocate.

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.250, dated 24.12.2009, under Sections 406, 498 A IPC, at Police Station Phase No.8, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

¶16

I have heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the whole record carefully.

¶17

A coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 4.2.2010, passed the following order:

¶18

“ This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.250, dated 24.12.2009, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, Police Station, Phase No.8, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

¶19

Learned counsel contends that entire family of the petitioner was implicated. Police did not find any incriminating material against the family members which makes it evident that false allegations were made.

¶20

It has further been pointed out the FIR does not disclose

¶21

Crl.M.No.M-3365 of 2010 (O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

commission of offence. If the veil is lifted, it would disclose that the issued does not relate to demand of dowry. If the wife took a loan from a bank or contributed towards house-hold expenses, it would not constitute offence under Sections 406 IPC.

¶24

Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, issue notice of motion for 16.2.2010.

¶25

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner will be released on interim bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶26

`(i)The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required;

¶27

(ii)The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and;

¶28

(iii)The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.'”

¶29

It has been stated by the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, he has already joined the investigation.

¶30

It has been stated by learned State counsel that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police.

¶31

More-over it has been stated by both the parties that compromise between them has been effected and they have started living together due to intervention of Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. It has also been stated that petitioner had filed divorce petition against the complainant and the same has also been withdrawn by him.

¶32

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶33

In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 4.2.2010, granting interim bail to

¶34

-3-

¶35

Crl.M.No.M-3365 of 2010 (O&M)

¶36

petitioner-Barjinder Singh, is, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶37

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

17.8.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge

Barjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barjinder Singh 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

Jagdish Chand Vs State of Punjab

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jagdish Rai Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Vs Assistant Commissioner (a.S.) Customs

Ranbir Singh Rathee and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Baljinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.