This judgment dismisses a bail application filed by a husband accused of offences under sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The court denied relief due to false allegations, lack of willingness to rehabilitate the wife, and evidence of financial fraud and treachery regarding her marriage.
The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 25265 of 2012
----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 25265 of 2012 Date of decision. 16.01.2013
Sukhraj Bahadur Singh
....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and anr.
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. Hemant Saini,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary,D.A.G., Punjab for the State.
Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the complainant-respondent no.2. --
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Sukhraj Bahadur Singh, the petitioner has sought prearrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 188 dated 19.07.2012 at Police Station Cantonment, District Amritsar City, for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the husband of Gagandeep Kaur, respondent no.2. According to him, the petitioner is willing to rehabilitate Gagandeep Kaur in every way. According to him, she is welcome to the society of the petitioner. According to him, the matter unfortunately could
Crl. Misc. No. M- 25265 of 2012
----2--
not be settled before the Mediation Centre, to whom this case was referred. He has further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false and he is entitled to anticipatory bail.
The bail application is opposed by the other side. It is argued by learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner was never ready to rehabilitate Gagandeep Kaur. According to him, the contents of the FIR would show how depraved is the character of the petitioner and that he is not entitled to anticipatory bail in this case.
The matter was referred to the mediation centre by way of order dated 04.10.2010 . The mediation proceedings failed to bring the desired result and the matter has been referred back to the court by the mediation centre. Had the petitioner been willing to rehabilitate his wife in every manner, the proceedings would not have ended in this manner. However, leaving that aside, one has to read the FIR to know about the allegations of the complainant against the petitioner. The complainant was trapped for this marriage on the promise of taking her abroad as the petitioner was living abroad. In this connection, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been taken from her parents. It is further the allegation that the marriage was solemnized in a proper way and claiming that nothing has been given in the marriage, demands were again made. A sum of
Crl. Misc. No. M- 25265 of 2012 ----3--
Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded in the name of getting Visa for Gagandeep Kaur. The height of treachery on the part of the petitioner is visible from the fact that in the name of obtaining Visa, her signatures were obtained on some papers and by mis-utilizing those papers, a petition for a decree of divorce was filed on her behalf, which was withdrawn by her on coming to know of the same.
Taking into consideration all these aspects, I do not find the petitioner to be entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
January 16, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under sections 406 and 498-A of IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sukhraj Bahadur Singh
The State of Punjab
Gagandeep Kaur
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
