Petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a murder case arising from a matrimonial dispute. The High Court dismissed the application as devoid of merit, noting it was not a case meriting extraordinary relief without deciding the merits of the underlying claim.
Anticipatory bail petition 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.
-1-
Crl.M.No.M-14196 of 2012(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-14196 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 16, 2012
Mohinder Singh and others
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate for the petitioners.
.......
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.28818 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-14196 of 2012
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in complaint case No.152T/09, dated 11.3.2006, under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which applications filed on behalf of the present petitioners for anticipatory bail were dismissed.
Briefly stated there was matrimonial dispute between petitioner-accused Sanjo Devi and Karnail Singh (deceased) as Sanjo Devi had been pressurising Karnail Singh to live separate from his parents and asking him that he should not give anything to his old parents, who were
Crl.M.No.M-14196 of 2012(O&M)
-2-
dependent upon him and that she was quarrelsome lady and used to quarrel with Karnail Singh and hence, Karnail Singh had developed habit of taking liquor frequently, as a result of which Sanjo Devi-petitioner had left the house of Karnail Singh alongwith her children and gone to the house of her parents. On 14.8.2005, Karnail Singh had visited the house of petitioners to bring Sanjo Devi-petitioner no.5 to the matrimonial home. He was staying there. However on 19.8.2005, the message was given by Sahib Singh son of Mehar Singh of Village Shergarh that Karnail Singh had expired.
As per post-mortem report, death of Karnail Singh was caused due to strangulation in the house of petitioners. FIR was also lodged and, however, no action was taken by the police and rather cancellation report was filed and hence the present complaint was filed by brother of deceased. All the petitioners have been summoned by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 IPC after finding prima facie case against them.
Hence, in view of the these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitionersaccused.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners-Mohinder Singh, Nirmal Singh, Sohan Singh, Ballu and Sanjo Devi for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
16.5.2012 meenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving murder arising from a matrimonial dispute.
Whether the facts disclose a situation where extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohinder Singh and others
State of Punjab and another
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
