Partly allowed

Vishwa Shakti Mahajan and Another v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2012CRM-M/10109/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the court declined bail for the petitioner husband citing non-cooperation with investigation and presumption within seven years of marriage, while converting interim bail to absolute for the mother-in-law due to lack of specific charges.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail declined for Vishwa Shakti Mahajan; interim pre-arrest bail for Asha Mahajan made absolute.

Vishwa Shakti Mahajan and Another Vs State of… — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-10109 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-10109 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 03, 2012

¶5

Vishwa Shakti Mahajan and another

.... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

.... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. S.S. Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana

¶13

Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

This is a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of concession of pre-arrest bail to petitioner in case FIR No.96 dated 14.03.2012 under Sections 406/498A/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this is a false and fabricated case and has been registered only with an intention to seek divorce. Allegations are similar whatever have been mentioned in the divorce petition. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and the complainant took place in the year 2007 and petitioner No.1 is residing

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-10109 of 2012 -2-

¶18

with his parents and complainant is residing with her parents since 2008. Learned counsel further contends that petitioner No.1 is husband and petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law of the complainant. There are three families living separately. Petitioner No.2 and her other two sons are residing separately on the first and second floors of the house whereas petitioner No.1 was residing with the complainant on the ground floor. In these circumstances question of interference by petitioner No.2 and other family members does not arise. The allegation of illicit relation of petitioner No.1 with his sister-in-law ( babhi ) is totally false. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to ration card and electricity bills to indicate separate residence of other family members. Learned counsel further states that no specific entrustment has been made to petitioner No.2. Even in the list of articles no specific reference to this effect has been made. At the most the entrustment would be with the husband which can be only presumption unless there is specific mention in the complaint regarding the entrustment to petitioner No.2. In the face of it, at least allegations against petitioner No.2 are false.

¶19

I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as for State has not been able to point out any specific entrustment made to petitioner No.2-Asha Mahajan. However, learned counsel for the State as well as

¶21

Crl. Misc. No.M-10109 of 2012 -3-

¶22

complainant state that articles are with petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 is not cooperating with the investigating agency. Only some of the household articles have been recovered and 18 tolas of gold are yet to be recovered from petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the complainant states that the petitioners have got the interim anticipatory bail by making statement that they would amicably settle the matter and were ready to rehabilitate the complainant and have misled this Court as they have utterly refused to settle the matter. Learned counsel further contended that petitioner No.1 cannot get advantage particularly in view of the fact that he has not joined the investigation.

¶23

I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the State as well as complainant.

¶24

Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is husband. Some of the articles have been recovered as mentioned in the list of articles annexed with the complaint, however recovery of 18 tolas of gold is yet to be effected. Learned counsel after seeking instructions from ASI Suresh Kumar states that petitioner is not cooperating with the investigating officer, hence, recovery could not be effected.

¶25

In view of this, I am not inclined to grant concession of prearrest bail to petitioner No.1. Since this has happened within 7 years of marriage, presumption can be raised against petitioner No.1. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, no specific allegation has been levelled

¶26

Crl. Misc. No.M-10109 of 2012

¶27

-4-

¶28

against her. No specific entrustment has been shown to her.

¶29

In view of above discussion, relief of pre-arrest bail qua petitioner No.1 is declined. However, order dated 04.04.2012 granting interim pre-arrest bail, is made absolute qua petitioner No.2.

¶30

(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE

¶31

03.07.2012 vcgarg

Vishwa Shakti Mahajan and Another v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwa Shakti Mahajan and Another v. State of Haryana

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

Preet Singh @ Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vikrant Kumar @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Vs State of Haryana

Varinder Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dharminder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab