Allowed

Sharanjit Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Dec 2014CRM-M/11032/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court awarded anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who faced charges under Sections 406, 498-A, and 506 IPC. The court concluded it was a fit case for anticipatory bail as the petitioner was on interim bail, not required for interrogation, and the trial would be prolonged.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; order dated 28.03.2014 making interim bail absolute.

Sharanjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

201

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-11032 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 08, 2014

Sharanjit Kaur

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Abnash Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.S.S.Chandumajra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶12

Mr.A.S.Saini, Advocate for the complainant.

¶13

¶14

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶15

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.4 dated 18.02.2014 under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC registered at Police Station NRI/S.A.S. Nagar, District S.A.S. Nagar.

¶16

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶18

From the record, first of all, I find that petitioner is married

¶19

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.10 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CRM No.M-11032 of 2014

¶21

-2-

¶22

sister-in-law of the complainant. She is residing separately in separate city. Dowry articles are not supposed to be in her possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated only being sister of husband of the complainant.

¶23

The petitioner has joined the investigation and not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioner is already on interim bail since 28.03.2014 i.e. for the last more than eight months and she has not misused the concession of bail. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

¶24

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 28.03.2014 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

¶25

December 08, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE

¶26

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.10 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sharanjit Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharanjit 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

Khalil Vs Jaituni and Anr.

Jasvir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sukhdev Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Om Parkash Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.

Palwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.