Single judge disposed of a petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail. The court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, noting that the lower court had already considered the allegations and recovery issues.
Petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is 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.
Crl.M.No.M-26471 of 2012(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-26471 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: September 3, 2012
Sarla
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
......
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.50956 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-26471 of 2012
The present petition filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 in case FIR No.120, dated 15.3.2012, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323, 376, 294 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani.
Respondent no.2 is a lady. She is mother-in-law of petitionercomplainant. Husband and father-in-law of petitioner-complainant were already arrested and released on regular bail. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that brother-in-law of petitionercomplainant was earlier granted bail and, however, his bail has now been
Crl.M.No.M-26471 of 2012(O&M) -2-
cancelled and he is also in custody. There is no specific allegation of entrustment of any specific dowry article to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 has been granted anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide order dated 3.5.2012. Thereafter an application for cancellation of bail was filed, which was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide impugned order dated 13.6.2012.
The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused is that recovery of some gold articles and cash remains to be effected.
However, this fact was duly considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, while granting bail to respondent no.2 and while dismissing application for cancellation of bail filed by petitioner.
Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitionerSarla for cancellatiion of anticipatory bail already granted to respondent no.2, is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
3.9.2012
meenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 should be cancelled in light of allegations against other family members and failure to recover gold articles and cash.
Whether there are sufficient grounds to disturb the lower court's decision to dismiss the application for cancellation of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sarla
State of Haryana
Another
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
