Allowed

Vikram Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2013CRM-M/10713/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants regular bail to Vikram Singh charged under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC in a dowry death case. The High Court accepted the bail petition noting the innocence of co-accused parents, lack of direct evidence against the petitioner, and that final trial will take a long time. No useful purpose is served in further custody.

What did the court decide?

Petition for regular bail accepted and petitioner ordered released on furnishing adequate and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Vikram Singh Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-10713 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-10713 of 2013 Date of Decision:- 02.05.2013

Vikram Singh

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Manish Deswal, D.A.G., Haryana, for the State.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶15

Petitioner-Vikram Singh son of Fateh Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, initially registered against him along with Fateh Singh and Ram Bai (his parents) and Rajbir (brother), by means of FIR No.148 dated 04.06.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 302 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶16

According to the prosecution that the marriage of Laxmi daughter of complainant Chhittar Singh son of Johar Singh (for brevity 'the complainant') was solemnized on 09.05.2004 with the petitioner, as

¶17

CRM No.M-10713 of 2013 2

¶18

per Hindu Rites & Ceremonies. Her parents were stated to have given sufficient dowry articles but the accused were not satisfied. They demanded 10 tolas gold and `1 lac cash. On 18.05.2012, son of the complainant received a telephonic call from the petitioner that the condition of his wife was serious and was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, they went their and found that Laxmi was lying dead on the cot. The accused were stated to have killed her. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, in the manner depicted hereinabove.

¶19

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶20

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶21

As is evident from the record that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the petitioner on 09.05.2004. She did not make any complaint whatsoever against the petitioner to her parents during her lifetime. The complainant & family members were duly informed by the petitioner regarding her death. On receiving the information, the complainant reached the hospital and moved a petition to the police that they had no suspicion to the death of the deceased and they did not want any police action. Accordingly, the police recorded DDR No.17 dated 19.05.2012 to that effect. The complainant has also received

¶22

CRM No.M-10713 of 2013 3

¶23

an amount of `21 lacs from accused, for depositing the same in the FDR in the name of three children of the petitioner. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the present case against the petitioner and his other co-accused on 04.06.2012.

¶24

It is not a matter of dispute that during the course of investigation Fateh Singh, Ram Bai (parents) and Rajbir (brother), coaccused of the petitioner, were found innocent by the police and prosecution story qua them was disbelieved.

¶25

Not only that, there is no direct evidence on record against the petitioner, except the statement of his child, wherein she has not specifically stated that the petitioner has murdered her mother. What is the effect of such statement, would be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court.

¶26

Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 23.08.2012. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served in further detaining him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. The final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶27

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail

¶28

CRM No.M-10713 of 2013

¶29

¶30

bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶31

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above,

¶32

would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for

¶33

regular bail.

¶34

May 02, 2013 naresh.k

¶35

( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) JUDGE

Vikram Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh 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

Charan Dass Vs State of Punjab

Sri Niwas M. Satyam Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ashok Ram Chand Chugani Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurjant Singh @ Janta and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab