Allowed

Satpal Garg & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jan 2013CRM-M/12473/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under section 498-A IPC, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted pre-arrest bail to survivor petitioner Sudesh Rani. The court noted the petitioner joined investigation despite prior dismissal and observed the complainant failed to prove dowry articles were given or exist for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; pre-arrest bail granted to Sudesh Rani; interim bail order made absolute.

Satpal Garg & Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M- 12473 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M- 12473 of 2012 Date of Decision: 08.01.2013

¶5

Satpal Garg and another

..... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Punjab

.... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present:Mr. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr.Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab for the State.

¶13

Mr.Arihant Jain, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶15

Satpal Garg and Sudesh Rani, the petitioners seek prearrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 26 dated 23.03.2012 at Police Station City Malerkotla, District Sangrur, for an offence punishable under section 498-A IPC.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Satpal Garg, petitioner no.1 has died on 16.12.2012. Hence the petition qua Satpal Garg has abated.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M- 12473 of 2012 2

¶18

Learned counsel for Sudesh Rani, petitioner no.2 has submitted that there are no specific allegations against Sudesh Rani in the entire FIR. According to him, the petitioners had joined the investigation before Satpal Garg, petitioner no.1 died. He has further submitted that as case under section 406 IPC has not been registered, there was no scope for recovery of any articles. He has, moreover, submitted that no article belonging to the complainant is with the petitioner.

¶19

Learned State counsel, on the instructions of ASI Harminder Singh, has submitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation. According to him, nothing is to be recovered in this case. He has further submitted that the complainant side could not even produce the bills for purchase of the alleged dowry articles.

¶20

Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioners applied for pre-arrest bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. According to him, vide order dated 23.04.2012 the application of the petitioners for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. According to him, he directed the petitioners to join the investigation on 24.04.2012 at 10.00 AM and instead of complying with the said directions, the petitioners rushed to this court with this petition. According to him, they did not think it proper to join the investigation

¶21

Crl. Misc. No.M- 12473 of 2012 3

¶22

in terms of the order dated 23.04.2012 and ,therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail.

¶23

While dismissing the application for anticipatory bail on 23.04.2012, the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur could not give any directions to the petitioners to join the investigation. In the event of dismissal of the application for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners, the police was at liberty to arrest them. It is, however, admitted by learned State counsel that the petitioners have joined the investigation. It has come from learned State counsel that the complainant side failed to even prove that any dowry article was given in the marriage. The question of recovery of dowry articles comes next to the proof of the giving of the same in the marriage as per the list by the complainant side.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find petitioner no.2 Sudesh Rani to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the petition is allowed. The order dated 01.05.2012 granting interim bail to Sudesh Rani, petitioner no.2 is made absolute.

¶25

January 08, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE

Satpal Garg & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal Garg & Anr. v. State of Punjab

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

Rakesh @ Kabra Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Hanpreet Kaur Vs State of U.T. Chandigarh

Ut of Chandigarh Vs Madan Lal

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Karan @ Lovely Vs State of Haryana