Allowed

Bhupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 May 2013CRM-M/15023/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to Bhupinder Kaur, the unmarried sister of the accused, in a case involving domestic violence and allegations of dowry harassment. The court found no corresponding injury for the alleged slap and rejected the inference of a family-wide conspiracy.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Bhupinder Kaur on conditions: availability for interrogation, no inducement/threats, no leaving India without permission, and surrendering passport.

Bhupinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl.M.No. M- 15023 of 2013 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl.M.No. M- 15023 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.5.2013

¶4

... Bhupinder Kaur ................Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .................Respondent

¶5

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri

¶6

Present: Sh. Ankur Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Sh. K.D. Sachdeva, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶8

Sh. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Sh. Tarun Jaitly, Advocate for the complainant.

¶9

K.C. Puri, J.

¶10

Crl.M.No. 26220 of 2013 stands allowed. Documents

¶11

Annexures P-5 to P-7 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Main case.

¶13

Petitioner – Bhupinder Kaur has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 173 dated 10.10.2012 under Section 323/498-A/34 IPC (Offence under Section 307 IPC deleted during

¶14

Crl.M.No. M- 15023 of 2013 -2-

¶15

investigation) registered at Police Station Matour, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

¶16

As per allegation of the prosecution, complainant was married to Tejinder Singh and petitioner is the un-married sister of said Tejinder Singh. It is alleged that after 5-6 years of marriage Tejinder Singh started beating the complainant saying that her son is a burden to him and she and her parents have given less dowry. Small car Figo has been given instead of Innova car. On account of the said fact, husband used to beat the complainant. It is further alleged that Tejinder Singh told the complainant that gold ornaments have not been given to the petitioner. On 8.10.2012 at about 7.30 P.M. complainant was cooking meal in the kitchen, Tejinder Singh came and started saying that he is making arrangement for the complainant. Mother of the complainant had also came to the complainant who at that point of time was sitting in another room and was offering prayers. The complainant went to the other side from the kitchen by taking that her husband wanted to take up fight with her and went inside the room. Tejinder Singh switched off the TV and her son was pushed out of the room and told the complainant that her as well as her mother's room was upstairs and she must go there. It is further alleged that Tejinder Singh caught hold of the complainant from her hairs and threw her down and started pressing her neck with the rope lying there. The petitioner Bhupinder Kaur also came there and gave slaps at her face and back. Thereafter hairs of the complainant were pulled. On hearing the voice, her mother came

¶17

Crl.M.No. M- 15023 of 2013 -3-

¶18

forward to save her. Tejinder Singh gave fist blow under the left eye of her mother and also pushed her. On hearing noise raised by the complainant, Tejinder Singh and his sister left the complainant.

¶19

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Jasbir Singh, has stated at the Bar that offence under Section 307 IPC has been deleted and Tejinder Singh has been allowed the concession of regular bail. He has further contended that however, offence under Section 406 IPC has been added.

¶20

However, during the course of arguments, it is revealed that complainant is residing in the matrimonial house, whereas the petitioner has been shunted out.

¶21

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in the photographs, it can be seen that the complainant has strangulation mark on the neck. So, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

¶22

I have considered the said submission, but according to the prosecution offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. The attribution of strangulation is against Tejinder Singh, who has been allowed the concession of regular bail.

¶23

The allegation against the petitioner is that she slapped the complainant. However, learned State counsel, is fair enough to concede that there is no corresponding injury regarding slap. She is unmarried sister of the husband of the complainant. There is a tendency to rope all the family members. So, it is a fit case to allow the concession of anticipatory bail.

¶24

Crl.M.No. M- 15023 of 2013 -4-

¶25

So, in these circumstances, the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, stands accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Officer on the following conditions as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.:-

¶26

i) that the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation, as and when required, by the police;

¶27

ii)that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶28

iii)that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court and shall surrender her passport, if any.

¶29

( K.C. Puri ) 17.5.2013 Judge chugh

Bhupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupinder Kaur 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

Gopal and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Davinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bhopal Vs State of Haryana

Shashi Bhushan Munjal Vs Arjun Rajani and Ors.

Jaswinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Gurmukh Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab