Partly allowed

Surbhi v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2013CRM-M/10823/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail. Bail granted to respondent no. 2 was cancelled due to violation of conditions by leaving India without permission and failing to surrender his passport. Bail granted to respondent no. 3 was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail of respondent no. 2 cancelled; surrender to police directed within 15 days; petition against respondent no. 3 dismissed.

Surbhi Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors. — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-10823 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-10823 of 2011 Date of decision : May 27, 2013

Surbhi

....Petitioner

versus

U.T. Chandigarh and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶11

Present : Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. JS Toor, Addl. PP for UT Chandigarh respondent no. 1 Mr. GS Gill, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2 and 3

¶13

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶14

This is petition by complainant Surbhi under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents no. 2 and 3/accused vide order dated 12.1.2011, Annexure P/3 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-9 of 2011 in FIR No. 331 dated 1.12.2010 under sections 406 and 498-A

¶15

Criminal Misc. No. M-10823 of 2011

¶16

-2-

¶17

IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-11, Chandigarh.

¶18

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

¶19

Pursuant to order of the preceding date, Kamla Devi Meena, Deputy Superintendent of Police, UT Chandigarh is present in person. Her affidavit filed today in Court by counsel for UT Chandigarh is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶20

Vide order Annexure P/3, respondents no. 2 and 3, who are husband and father-in-law respectively of the petitioner-complainant, were granted conditional anticipatory bail subject to return of Istri Dhan articles of the complainant within 30 days. However, dispute arose regarding the articles of Istridhan. Complainant was demanding more articles whereas respondents nos. 2 and 3 were disputing the same.

¶21

On 28.3.2012, when this petition was taken up, counsel for both the parties stated that both the parties shall submit their lists of articles under section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the pending divorce petition and Matrimonial Court while hearing divorce petition can adjudicate as to what are the articles given in the marriage and can pass suitable direction about the custody of dowry articles/Istri dhan. Consequently, dispute regarding articles has to be adjudicated by the Matrimonial Court.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 2 in violation of conditions specified in section 438(2) Cr.P.C. left India without

¶23

Criminal Misc. No. M-10823 of 2011

¶24

-3-

¶25

permission of the Court and respondent no. 2 has also not surrendered his passport before the trial court pursuant to order dated 28.3.2012 passed by this Court.

¶26

Counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3 contended that respondent no. 2 had gone abroad to submit his resignation only under the wrong advice of the counsel. It was also submitted that respondent no. 2 could not surrender the passport in trial court because no proceeding was pending before the trial court.

¶27

I have carefully considered the matter. Respondent no. 2 has violated the condition of anticipatory bail by going abroad without permission of the court. Not only that, respondent no. 2 also did not surrender his passport pursuant to order dated 28.3.2012 passed by this Court. Even if no proceedings were pending before the trial court, passport could be submitted in the trial court by making application with reference to order dated 28.3.2012 passed by this Court. In the alternative, respondent no. 2 could have approached this Court with his aforesaid problem for surrendering the passport. However, respondent no. 2 has remained silent for 14 months since after passing of order dated 28.3.2012. Thus, anticipatory bail granted to respondent no. 2 is liable to be cancelled. However, there is no ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no. 3.

¶28

Criminal Misc. No. M-10823 of 2011

¶29

-4-

¶30

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed partly. Anticipatory bail granted to respondent no. 2 vide order Annexure P/3 is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the police within 15 days from today. However, instant petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail qua respondent no. 3 is dismissed.

¶31

May 27, 2013 'dalbir'

¶32

( L.N. Mittal ) Judge

Surbhi v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surbhi v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

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

Sushil Dabra and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Chandan Dabra and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jasmeet Singh Gill & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Pankaj Shandilaya Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Krishna Devi and Anr. Vs Ramesh Kumar Bansal