Allowed
Sanjay Kumar v. State of Punjab
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-M/19875/2012
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH…
What the court decided
AI extract
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH…
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-19875 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:22.08.2012
Sanjay Kumar
... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Guninder Singh, AAG Punjab.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL)
Sanjay Kumar, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 125 dated 26.6.2010 at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar, for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of Sushma, the complainant. According to him, the parties had reached a compromise in pursuance of which they have already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent. In this regard he has referred me to Annexure P-2 a copy of judgment passed in a petition filed by the parties under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whereby decree of divorce had been passed. According to him, the parents of the petitioner have already faced trial and on
Crl. Misc. No.M-19875 of 2012 =2=
account of the compromise, complainant Sushma and other witnesses on her side resiled from their previous statements and consequently they were acquitted on the charge.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has not joined the investigation. He, however, admits that the parties have reached a compromise and on account of the same, Sushma took the amount of Rs.3,85,000/and the husband and wife obtained a decree of divorce. He also admits that parents-in-law of Sushma have already faced trial and are acquitted on account of the compromise.
If this is the situation, there is nothing to be investigated by the police by joining the petitioner in the investigation. So, keeping in view the fact that the parties have reached a compromise and have already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent, I find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated10.7.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
August 22,2012 Jiten
( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in a 498-A case where parties have reached a compromise and obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SANJAY KUMAR
STATE OF PUNJAB
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court