Partly allowed

Gagandeep Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Nov 2011CRM-M/19412/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused pre-arrest bail to petitioner No.1 (Gagandeep Singh) in a domestic cruelty case due to his conduct and refusal to resume living with the spouse. Conversely, pre-arrest bail was granted to petitioner No.2 (Satwant Kaur) after she joined the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed to petitioner No.2 subject to conditions; petition dismissed for petitioner No.1.

Gagandeep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-19412 of 2011

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH.

¶5

Date of Decision: November 29, 2011

¶6

Crl. Misc. No. M-19412 of 2011

¶7

Gagandeep Singh and another

…..Petitioners

Vs.

State of Punjab

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶13

-.-

¶14

Present:Mr.Rajesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

¶16

Mr.K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.

¶17

-.-

¶18

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶19

Petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Virpal Kaur wife of petitioner No.1 and daughter-in-law of petitioner No.2 alleging that she has been treated with cruelty after her marriage and that her dowry articles have been misappropriated by the petitioners.

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M-19412 of 2011

¶21

[2]

¶22

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is the behaviour of the complainant which has played the main role in not permitting petitioner No.1 to stay with the complainant. It has been submitted that complainant Virpal Kaur is a quarrelsome lady who is in the habit of beating the family members of petitioner No.1. It has been alleged that at different occasions she had given beatings to the grand-mother of the petitioner. The allegations have been levelled against the complainant hat she has got an extramarital affair with one Conductor Sukhdev Singh of Baja Khana and another boy named Gurpreet Singh and she is in constant touch with other persons. A DDR dated February 8, 2010 was also recorded at Police Station Abohar when the complainant had given beatings to Kartar Kaur, the maternal grand-mother of petitioner No.1.

¶23

After hearing counsel for the petitioners and complainant an attempt was made by this Court to bring about reconciliation as all the efforts before the Mediation Centre failed. The parties were asked to settle the dispute by talking to each other. They were sent together to the Canteen to enable them to talk to each other and settle the dispute. It appears that petitioner No.1 is adamant not to resume cohabitation. Though there are allegations against the complainant that she is quarrelsome lady but she has expressed her desire that she is ready to withdraw all her cases against the petitioners in case she is fairly treated by the petitioners.

¶24

It will be premature at this stage to enter into the controversy as to who is responsible for the matrimonial discord. It is the behaviour of petitioner No.1 for the habits of the complainant which do not permit the

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M-19412 of 2011

¶26

[3]

¶27

parties to stay together. Since there are allegations of cruelty against petitioner No.1; petitioner No.1 has gone to the extent of levelling allegations against the character of the complainant. In case the said allegations are ultimately found to be false or are not substantiated, this is certainly a factor which constitutes cruelty.

¶28

Without entering into the minute details, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner No.2 who is the mother of petitioner No.1 can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail having already joined investigation.

¶29

The petition qua petitioner No.2 Satwant Kaur is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner she will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to all the conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶30

So far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, in view of his conduct it will not be appropriate to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to him. The petition qua petitioner No.1- Gagandeep Singh is dismissed, as no extraordinary circumstances exist to grant the pre-arrest bail to him.

¶31

November 29, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

Gagandeep Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagandeep Singh and Anr. 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

Amritpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Vs State of Haryana

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hasan Mohd. @ Hassan Vs State of Haryana

Gurdas Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab