Dismissed

Harjeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Oct 2011CRM-M/19979/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in a Section 498-A IPC case due to the petitioner's failure to comply with interim directives regarding financial undertakings and the presence of the minor child.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; custody of the minor child directed to be obtained by the investigating officer and handed over to the respondent wife.

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

¶1

CRM-M No.19979 of 2011(O&M)

¶2

::1::

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.19979 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.10.2011

Harjeet Singh

...... Petitioner

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...... Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶12

*******

¶13

Present : Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. S.S. Gill, D.A.G., Punjab.

¶15

Mr. N.C. Doabia, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

¶16

*******

¶17

AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)

¶18

This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.116 dated 17.06.2011 registered under Sections 498-A IPC at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar Rural.

¶19

On 23.08.2011 the following order was passed:-

¶20

“Parties are present in person. Learned counsel

¶21

CRM-M No.19979 of 2011(O&M)

¶22

::2::

¶23

for the petitioner has reiterated the fact that the petitioner is very keen to mend his relationship with his wife-respondent No.2.

¶24

The respondent No.2 has neither made any claim for the custody of the minor daughter nor for any maintenance till date yet she has now verbally made this prayer in the Court.

¶25

To show his bonafide, the petitioner is ready to bring a draft of Rs.4000/- in favour of the respondent No.2 and also bring the minor child in the Court on the next date of hearing.

¶26

Adjourned to 15.09.2011.”

¶27

On 15.09.2011 the following order was passed:-

¶28

“Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner could not come present because the minor child is unwell and undertakes to appear on the next date of hearing.

¶29

Respondent No.2 and her counsel state that they have no objection.

¶30

Adjourned to 05.10.2011. Interim order to continue, meanwhile.”

¶31

Even today neither the minor child nor the petitioner is present.

¶32

Even the amount of `4000/- as ordered on 23.08.2011 has not been paid by the petitioner.

¶33

It is thus clear that the petitioner is trying to over reach this Court by making false assertions and by getting the order of interim stay of arrest on the basis of untrue statements and undertaking.

¶34

In the circumstances, this court is left with no other option except to dismiss this petition.

¶35

CRM-M No.19979 of 2011(O&M)

¶36

::3::

¶37

Consequently, even while dismissing this petition the court cannot be blind to the plight of the child in case of the arrest of the petitioner.

¶38

Resultantly, even while dismissing the petition it is directed that the custody of the child should be obtained by the investigating officer and handed over to the respondent No.2.

¶39

( AJAY TEWARI ) October 05, 2011 JUDGE ashish

Harjeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjeet Singh 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

Sukdev Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Mahavir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh @ Rana Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Alias Sonu Vs State of Punjab

Vinod Rana Vs State of Punjab

Harbir Singh Vs State of Punjab