In a pre-arrest bail petition under Section 438 CrPC regarding dowry allegations, the Court dismissed the plea and directed the investigating officer to arrest the petitioner and effect recovery immediately.
Directed the investigating officer to arrest the petitioner and effect; complainant free to file maintenance application.
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-22198 of 2011(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-22198 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 01 , 2012
Amandeep Singh
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.P.S. Kang, Advocate for respondent No.2.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.(ORAL)
This is a petition filed by petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking concession of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.70 dated 20.06.2011 under Secitons 498-A/34 IPC at Police Station Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
Attempts were made by this Court to explore the possibility of compromise between the parties but failed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner after seeking instructions from the petitioner states that he will not be able to rehabilitate the complainant nor in a position to pay maintenance to petitioner and minor child. Petitioner is working as Clerk in the Civil Secretariat and presently is
Crl. Misc. No.M-22198 of 2011(O&M)
-2-
in the personal staff of Chief Minister. Admittedly, the allegations against the petitioner and his mother are with regard to demand of dowry. The allegations against the petitioner-husband are of serious nature. No ground is made out to grant concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Recovery of articles is yet to be effected. Earlier the interim bail was granted on the ground that there were chances of compromise between the parties.
Learned counsel for the complainant states that petitioner is in personal staff of Chief Minister due to which no proper steps were being taken, nor any attempt are being made to arrest the petitioner.
Investigating officer/arresting officer is directed to take appropriate steps to arrest the petitioner and effect recoveries. Complainant will be at liberty to file appropriate application for maintenance before the competent Court.
Dismissed.
(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE
01.05.2011 vcgarg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC in a dowry case where recovery of articles is pending.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amandeep Singh
State of Punjab
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
