The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, a second wife of the complainant's father-in-law, finding allegations false in a dowry harassment case where primary accused were already on bail.
Petition allowed; interim anticipatory bail order made absolute.
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- 34875 of 2012(O&M)
----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 34875 of 2012 Date of decision. 29.01.2013
Smt. Narinder Kaur
....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. Deepak Saini,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary,DAG, Punjab for the State.
Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Crl. Misc. No.66491 of 2012
Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No.M-34875 of 2012
Narinder Kaur, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 190 dated 12.10.2012 at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 34875 of 2012(O&M)
----2--
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is second wife of father-in-law of the complainant Amanpreet Kaur. According to him, the petitioner had been residing separately from the complainant and her husband and that she had no concern with the matrimonial relations between the complainant and her husband. According to him, she has been falsely implicated in the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even Deputy Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar (Mohali) conducted a preliminary enquiry in which he found that the allegations levelled against all the members of the family of the husband are false. According to him, while the complainant was married with Gauravdeep Singh on 15.02.2006, the marriage of the petitioner with the father-in-law of the complainant is of the year 2009. He has further submitted that the husband and fatherin-law of the complainant have already been arrested and have been released on regular bail. According to him, in these circumstances, it is clearly shown that the allegations against the petitioner are false and levelled only with a view to involve all the members of the family of the husband.
Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail. According to
Crl. Misc. No. M- 34875 of 2012(O&M) ----3--
him, a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was spent in the marriage. It is further submitted that the husband and father-in-law of the complainant had stated while in custody that the dowry articles are with the petitioner.
It is very unusual that a father had himself married after three years of the marriage of his son. Such a marriage cannot be taken without frowns and such a woman cannot be accepted in the family. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been living separately from the complainant and her husband may get support from the aforesaid circumstances. What were the dowry articles which are stated to be with the petitioner are not specified. When the marriage of the complainant took place with Gauravdeep Singh , the petitioner was nowhere in the family and there could be no entrustment of dowry articles to her. Keeping in view the fact that the husband and father-in-law of the complainant have already been arrested and released on regular bail as also the other facts mentioned as above, I find her to be entitled to bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 06.11.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
January 29,2013 (Vijender Singh Malik) dinesh Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving alleged false implication under sections 406 and 498-A IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Narinder Kaur
The State of Punjab
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
