In a criminal miscellaneous petition for pre-arrest bail, the High Court rejected the claim due to the prima facie strength of bigamy and dowry allegations and failure to produce recovered articles.
Petition for pre-arrest bail 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.
Cr.Misc. M 17613 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr.Misc. M 17613 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.9.2011
Manjit Kaur and another
petitioner
vs
State of Punjab
respondent
Present:Mr. SS Siao, Advocate Mr. Arshvinder Singh,Addl.A.G.Pb
M.M.S.BEDI, J.
Petitioners 1 and 2 are mother and son. They seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Hardip Kaur wife of petitioner No.2 Jaspreet singh alleging that she was married to petitioner No.2 after the death of her earlier husband but she has been maltreated by the petitioners on the account of having brought less dowry. The petitioners, pursuant to the interim orders have joined the investigation. Learned State counsel, on the instructions of ASI Gurmail Singh, informs that certain dowry articles are yet to be recovered, which include the gold articles. List of the articles, which are yet to be recovered, has been referred to. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the recovery of the material articles stands already effected.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There are allegations against the petitioner No.2 Jaspreet Singh having again married with Jasbir Kaur during the subsistence of marriage with the complainant. The said allegation further substantiates the prima
Cr.Misc. M 17613 of 2011
2
facie atrocities alleged against the petitioners.
In view of the fact that petitioner No.2 in connivance with petitioner No.1 has entered into a matrimonial bond with Jasbir Kaur on 22.11.2010 at a function in Blessings Garden at Ludhiana, there does not appear to be any ground to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter can be amicably settled as the complainant and the petitioners are distantly related to each other. There is no ground to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail on the said probability. The matter can always be amicably settled at any stage without pre-arrest bail having been granted to the petitioners. In case the matter is amicably settled, it will be open to the parties to seek quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel further contends that bigamy is attributed to petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.1 is not attributed any part in the alleged second marriage. The said plea may constitute a good ground for regular bail by surrendering before the Illaqa Magistrate but I do not find any extra ordinary exceptional circumstances for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
Dismissed.
Nothing mentioned in the order will prejudice the right of the petitioners to seek the concession of regular bail.
September 13 , 2011 TSM
(M.M.S.BEDI ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to petitioners facing allegations of bigamy and dowry-related atrocities.
Whether the prima facie attractiveness of the allegations and failure to locate recovered dowry articles warrants bail.
Manjit Kaur
State of Punjab
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
