Allowed

Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Mar 2013CRM-M/196/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail in a case involving assault, intimidation, and abduction allegations. The petitioner joined the investigation and was granted bail subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence and interfering with the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail allowed with conditions to join investigation and not interfere with complainant or tamper with evidence.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Cr.Misc. M 196 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Cr.Misc. M 196 of 2013 Date of decision:-11.3.2013

Manoj Kumar

Petitioner

vs.

State of Hry

Respondent

Present: Mr. JK Goel, Advocate. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Hry Ms. Monica Jalota, Advocate.

¶11

M.M.S.BEDI,J.

¶12

The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case, registered at the instance of his wife Suman alleging that her brothers and the petitioner had assaulted, criminally intimidated and abducted her.

¶13

After hearing counsel for the parties, it transpires that the complainant was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner; two children were born out of the wedlock; on account of matrimonial controversy, the complainant is at present staying with Lalit Bansal. The dispute regarding the validity of the Panchayati compromise, is not to be settled in the present proceedings. It is sufficient to observe here that the petitioner had been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but on addition of offence u/s 364 IPC, the petitioner filed an application for pre-arrest bail, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 24.12.2012.

¶14

Counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the

¶15

Cr.Misc. M 196 of 2013

¶16

¶17

complainant at present is living with Lalit Bansal, with whom she has married on 23.10.2008 and thereafter again on 17.1.2011. Civil litigation regarding the custody of one minor child is pending. It will be a debatable issue whether the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner stands dissolved legally or that she has legally married Lalit Bansal. Prima facie, it appears that the dispute is regarding the custody of the minor child, regarding which civil litigation is pending. The petitioner, pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, has already joined the investigation, as per the instructions of ASI Ranvir Singh.

¶18

The petition is allowed and interim order dated 9.1.2013 is hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. The petitioner will not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of . The petitioner will not, in any manner, interfere in the life and liberty of the complainant. In case of violation of any of the above said conditions, it will be open to the complainant to seek the concession of bail.

¶19

March 11 ,2013 TSM

¶20

( M.M.S.BEDI ) JUDGE

Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Sucha Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar @ Raja Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harcharan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Raghbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Parshotam Singh Vs State of Punjab