Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a matrimonial dispute. Bail denied as petitioner failed to comply with a mediation order to pay maintenance and file divorce proceedings.
Application for concession of pre-arrest bail dismissed; interim relief vacated.
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.
Cr.Misc. M 13579 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr.Misc. M 13579 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.11.2011
Paramjit Lal
vs.
State of Punjab
Respondent
Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh, DAG, Pb Mr. RK Dadwal, Advocate.
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Rajwinder Kaur alleging that the petitioner was married to the complainant in the year 2009. Son born out of the marriage is residing with the complainant. The complainant was turned out of the house. A report has been received from the Mediation Centre that the matter could not be amicably settled.
Learned counsel for the complainant has handed over a photo copy of the order passed by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 22.7.2011 wherein the petitioner had apparently agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs. As per the arrangement mentioned in the agreement a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was also to be filed before 16.8.2011. The complainant, present in the court along with her counsel, has informed that the terms and conditions of the agreement have not been complied with as neither any penny has been paid nor any proceedings u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act have been filed. There are allegations of cruelty against the petitioner. He appears to have made an attempt to
Cr.Misc. M 13579 of 2011
2
hoodwink the process of law and evade his arrest by giving a false assurance to the complainant to part company on payment of lump sum amount of maintenance. Having taken no steps to full fill the terms and conditions of the compromise, no ground is made out to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail.
Dismissed. Any interim relief given to the petitioner by this court is hereby vacated. It will be open to the investigating officer to arrest the petitioner and proceed against him in accordance with law. This order will not prejudice the right o the petitioner to seek the concession of regular
bail, as per law.
November 14 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted given the complainant's allegation that the petitioner failed to comply with a mediation agreement?
Whether a false assurance to evade arrest negates grounds for bail concession?
Paramjit Lal
State of Punjab
M.M. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
