Allowed

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2013CRM-M/12479/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Criminal matter involved offences under IPC Sections 147, 149, 366, 342 and 506, with 376 subsequently added. The Court accepted the petition and made interim bail absolute based on facts showing voluntary marriage and cooperation in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail accepted; interim bail order made absolute subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-12479 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-12479 of 2013 Date of Decision:09.05.2013

¶5

Pawan Kumar .....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶9

Present: Mr.Satbir Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

¶11

Mr.G.P.Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶12

¶13

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶14

Petitioner-Pawan Kumar son of Mahavir Singh, has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.48 dated 11.03.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 366, 342 and 506 IPC(the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was subsequently added), by the police of Police Station Rania, District Sirsa, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents.

¶16

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 anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶17

¶18

CRM No.M-12479 of 2013

¶19

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court(Amol Rattan Singh, J.) passed the following order on April 18, 2013:-

¶20

“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as is obvious from the marriage photographs annexed to the petition, as also from the perusal of the Daily Diary Report dated 09.06.2012, reproduced at Page 3 of the petition, that the complainant had actually gone of her own will with the petitioner and married him at the Arya Smaj Mandir at Hisar. He further contends that as a result of this, her parents had disowned her by announcing the renunciation of the complainant by general publication in the newspaper on 12.07.2012 (a copy of the cutting is Annexure P-2). He still further contends that the complainant was admittedly left at her parents' home on 06.02.2013 by the petitioner, even as per her own complaint in the FIR.

¶21

Notice of motion for 25.04.2013 to the State, as also to the complainant, even though she was not impleaded in the petition. She would be added as respondent No.2. Her address shall be furnished by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

In the meanwhile, in case of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing bail bonds subject to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order will sustain only till the next date of hearing and the matter would be heard on merits again, upon service of the respondents.”

¶23

At the very outset, on the instructions from SI Nafe Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even, since the police has not submitted the final police report(challan), so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶24

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, by means of order dated April 18, 2013, is hereby made absolute, subject

¶25

CRM No.M-12479 of 2013 3

¶26

to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶27

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant context.

¶28

May 09, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar 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

Sunder Vs State of Haryana

Jagdeep Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Bikramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Arun Son of Badlu Ram Vs State of Haryana