Allowed

Suman and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2010CRM-M/34194/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding FIR No. 658, registered under Sections 498-A and 406/34 IPC was allowed. The Court noted the petitioners were sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant without alleged dowry entorse, found allegations vague and baseless, and granted bail, making earlier interim directions absolute.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim directions of 3.12.2009 made absolute.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-34194 of 2009

¶3

Date of decision: March 23, 2010

Suman and another

Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶8

Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶10

Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners

¶11

Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondent – State

¶12

Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the complainant

¶13

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 658 dated 6.10.2009 under Sections 498-A, 406/34 IPC registered at Police Station City Jind, District Jind.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 is married sister-in-law and petitioner No. 2 is brother-in-law of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioner No. 1 was got married much prior to the marriage of complainant and she is having two kids and there is no demand of dowry either by petitioner No. 1 or petitioner No. 2. Moreover, no specific allegation of entrustment of dowry to the present petitioners are there and allegations in the FIR are vague and baseless. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioner No.

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. M-34194 of 2009

¶17

¶18

2 is a student of JBT and he has no connection with demand of dowry.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent – State has not opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶20

Keeping in view the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is married sister-inlaw who got married prior to the marriage of complainant and residing separately and petitioner No. 2 is a student of JBT, the present petition is allowed and interim directions issued by this Court on 3.12.2009 are made absolute.

¶21

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶23

23.03.2010 reena

Suman and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman and Anr. v. State of Haryana

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

Anil Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Vijay Verma @ Vicky and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Atma Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajvir Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Karanbir Singh Alias Karan and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sarpanch Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others