Allowed

Harmeet Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2013CRM-M/13262/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge disposed of a bail petition filed by a married couple. The court recorded that the father of the second petitioner had accepted the marriage and Rs. 2 lacs in FD form for three years was deposited as security per a prior order dated 26.04.2013. The petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the police for protection and security.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to approach the Commissioner of Police, Patiala for protection; directions issued for provision of adequate security and ensuring petitioners are not arrested.

Harmeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc No.M-13262 of 2013 Date of decision: May 03, 2013.

¶3

Harmeet Kaur and another

¶4

..... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶9

Present : Mr. Simranjit S. Blassi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. K.S.Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Instant petition has been filed seeking protection of life and liberty of the petitioners from respondents No.4 to 7.

¶13

On 26.04.2013, the following order was passed by this Court:

¶14

“Instant petition has been filed seeking protection of life and liberty of the petitioners from respondents No.4 to 7. The petitioners assert that they are major and as there is no legal impediment, they have got married. They have already moved a representation dated 22.04.2013 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Patiala, for protecting their life and liberty.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that

¶16

Crl. Misc No.M-13262 of 2013 /2/

¶17

Sukhwinder Singh, father of petitioner no.2, has accepted the marriage. The learned counsel further contends that to show their bona fide, petitioner no.2 and his father will deposit a sum of Rs.2 lacs in the name of petitioner no.1 in the form of FDR for a period of three years. Separate affidavits, filed by petitioner no.2 and his father in Court today, are taken on record.

¶18

Notice of motion for 03.05.2013.

¶19

In the meantime, the petitioners may not be

¶20

arrested.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in compliance of order dated 26.04.2013, petitioner no.2 has deposited the entire amount i.e. ` 2 lacs in the form of FDR for three years in favour of petitioner no.1. A photocopy of receipt, filed in Court, is taken on record.

¶22

In view of above, the present petition is disposed of and liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach respondent No.2- Commissioner of Police, Patiala for protection, as per instructions dated 18.08.2010 issued by the Home Department, Punjab. Petitioners may not be arrested and adequate security be provided to them, if required.

¶23

May 03, 2013 parveen kumar

¶24

[ Paramjeet Singh ] Judge

Harmeet Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmeet Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Punjab Vs Gurdev Singh

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Saurab Libra & Ors. Vs State of Ut Chd & Ors.

Surender Singh Vs State of Haryana

Balbir Singh Alias Ghakna Vs State of Punjab

Rimpy Vs State of Punjab and Others