Allowed

Mahabir v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Feb 2012CRM-M/32236/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order grants pre-arrest bail to petitioners Mahabir, Laxmi, and Prachir Kumar, who faced sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC. Conditional release is ordered with bond requirements and medical fund disbursement.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on furnishing personal and surety bonds to satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer until Section 173 report filing.

Mahabir Vs State of Haryana — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. Nos. M- 32236 and M-32711 of 2011

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶4

1. Criminal Misc. No. M-32236 of 2011 Mahabir ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent AND 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-32711 of 2011

¶5

... Respondent

¶6

Laxmi and Another

¶7

... Petitioners Versus

¶8

State of Haryana

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Date of Decision: 22.2.2012

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Harminderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent.

¶14

Mr. Sharad Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

¶15

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶16

By this common order, Criminal Misc. No. M-32236 of 2011 preferred by Mahabir, father-in-law of complainant-Veena Sharma and Criminal Misc. No. M-32711 of 2011 preferred by Laxmi, mother-in-law and Prachir Kumar, husband of the complainant, shall be decided together. These petitions have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for

¶17

Criminal Misc. Nos. M- 32236 and M-32711 of 2011

¶18

¶19

grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in case arising out of FIR No. 288 dated 1.9.2011 registered at Police Station Model Town, Rewari, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC.

¶20

Vide order dated 21.10.2011, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-32236 of 2011, Mahabir, father-in-law of the complainant, was granted interim pre-arrest bail. The same reads as under:-

¶21

“In this petition, notice was issued in view of the offer made by the petitioner that he was ready to get treatment for the complainant from the best possible medical institute for breast tumor. It has been stated by his counsel that he had gone to the house of the complainant but her parents refused to send her with him and that it was not possible for him to get such medical treatment for her. If that is the case, let the petitioner, to send her with him and it was not possible for him to get such medical treatment for her. If that is the case, let the petitioner, in order to show his bona fide, deposit Rs.1.00 lac with the Registrar of this Court within a week, which shall be payable to the complainant for getting her treatment.

¶22

Now to come up on 18.01.2012.

¶23

The interim order shall continue in the meanwhile. In case the said amount is not deposited

¶24

Criminal Misc. Nos. M- 32236 and M-32711 of 2011

¶25

¶26

then the interim order shall be deemed to have been vacated.”

¶27

Similarly, in Criminal Misc. No. M-32711 of 2011, Laxmi, mother-in-law and Prachir Kumar, husband of the complainant, were granted interim pre-arrest bail by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by passing the following order on 15.11.2011:-

¶28

“Criminal Misc. No. 61066 of 2011

¶29

Documents taken on record.

¶30

Application disposed of.

¶31

Criminal Misc.-M No. 32711 of 2011

¶32

The petitioners are mother-in-law and husband-in-law (sic). Offences are under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC. As per the documents now placed on record, there is an evidence that the complainant had voluntarily gone to her matrimonial home.

¶33

Notice of motion for 19.12.2011.

¶34

In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. They will join the investigation as and when required.”

¶35

Mr. Sharad Kumar Yadav, Advocate, appearing on behalf of complainant-Veena Sharma, has submitted that the dowry articles are

¶36

Criminal Misc. Nos. M- 32236 and M-32711 of 2011

¶37

¶38

yet to be recovered. Furthermore the complainant requires urgent medical treatment for which no aid is coming forward from the side of the accused.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on instructions from Murari Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector, submits that the petitioners have joined the investigation.

¶40

A perusal of memorandum of parties reveals that the petitioners are residents of Bangalore. If the petitioners are sent behind the bars, it will foreclose all options between the parties to amicably resolve the dispute. This Court is of the view that the time is a great healer and better sense may prevail upon the parties for all times to come. However, taking into consideration the fact that the complainantaggrieved wife is suffering from breast tumour, as agreed and submitted by counsel for the parties it is ordered that Rs. 1,00,000, so deposited by petitioner-Mahabir in the Registry of this Court, be disbursed to her.

¶41

Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence Criminal Misc. No. M-32236 of 2011, preferred by Mahabir and Criminal Misc. No. M-32711 of 2011, preferred by Laxmi and Prachir Kumar, are accepted. In the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be admitted to pre-arrest bail on their furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, till filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. On submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the petitioners shall furnish regular bail-bonds to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The trial Court shall be

¶42

Criminal Misc. Nos. M- 32236 and M-32711 of 2011

¶43

¶44

empowered to cancel bail of the petitioners in case of breach of any of the terms & conditions of the bail bonds.

¶45

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶46

February 22, 2012

¶47

“DK”

Mahabir v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahabir 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

Ranjit Singh Vs Bhupinder Singh & Anr.

Manjul Aggarwal Vs State of Punjab

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Mandip Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurdeep Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Mahender Vs State of Haryana