Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail. While intermediary resolution failed, the Judge held custody unnecessary for recovering disputed matrimonial articles and imposed conditions, granting bail.
Interim bail order dated 6.5.2011 made absolute; petitioner released subject to conditions regarding disputed cattle.
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.
Crl. Misc. -M No. 11698 of 2011 -1 -
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. -M No. 11698 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.8.2011
Sandeep Kumar
..Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab
..Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present : Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Narinder Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre arrest bail to the petitioner. After issuance of notice of motion, on 6.5.2011, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre in this Court and interim stay of arrest was granted to the petitioner. However, the matter could not be settled in the Mediation Centre.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had joined investigation and all dowry articles have already been recovered. In fact, the present FIR is counter blast of the FIR, which was got registered by the father of the petitioner against the family members of the complainant for trespass and assault in which after presentation of challan, even charges have also been framed. He further submitted that one buffalo was given in the marriage, which is not being taken back by the complainant.
On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as for the complainant submitted that one buffalo is to be recovered. In addition to that certain jewellery items which were either given to the wife of the petitioner at the time of marriage or other family members, are also to be recovered.
Crl. Misc. -M No. 11698 of 2011 -2 -
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for recovery of jewellery which was allegedly given at the time of marriage either to the complainant/wife of the petitioner or as gift to other family members. As far as buffalo is concerned, the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case the complainant is willing to take the buffalo back he will leave the same at her residence at Rajpura. However, in the alternative he can pay ` 25,000/- in cash to her. The complainant is at liberty to intimate the petitioner as to whether she will take the buffalo back or cash in lieu thereof. Accordingly, interim bail granted to the petitioner on 6.5.2011 is made absolute.
The petition stands disposed of.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
25.8.2011 Meenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner requires custody for recovery of disputed dowry articles.
Whether conditions regarding cattle and monetary payment can satisfy relief sought by complainant.
Sandeep Kumar
State of Punjab
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
