The Court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a matrimonial FIR, rejecting claims of compromise as the complainant alleged false statements and confirmed non-residence.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-12762 of 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-12762 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.08.2012
Ajay Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: - Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.119 dated 24.8.2010 under Sections 498-A/494/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar District Gurdaspur.
While granting interim bail to the petitioner on 3.5.2012, this Court has specifically noted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised and the complainantwife has started living with the petitioner.
When case came up for hearing on 5.7.2012, the petitioner was not present, the case was adjourned for today and petitioner was directed to come present. Today parties are present in Court. Complainant-wife states that the statement made in the Court is false, actually petitioner got some affidavit signed from her, which is now alleged to be a compromise. She further states that petitioner is not residing with her
-2-
Crl. Misc. No. M-12762 of 2012 (O&M)
nor he has returned the dowry articles.
This is a case where the complainant in spite of odds is staying
with her in-laws and has not levelled any allegation against them.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and statement made by the complainant, petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed.
Dismissed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge
August 16, 2012 R.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given the complainant's retraction of the allegation regarding compromise.
Whether the facts and circumstances warrant the grant of anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 498-A/494/34 IPC.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajay Kumar
State of Punjab
Another
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
