Allowed

Surender Kapoor @ Surinder Singh Kapoor & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2014CRM-M/12885/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by parents-in-law facing dowry-related allegations. Finding that they had already joined the investigation and the main accused were already on bail, the Court made earlier interim bail absolute subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Instant petition for anticipatory bail accepted; interim bail granted by the Court on 10.05.2013 made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Surender Kapoor @ Surinder Singh Kapoor… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM No.M-12885 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-12885 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 23.04.2014

¶5

Surender Kapoor @ Surinder Singh Kapoor and another

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and another

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. J.S. Toor, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1-State.

¶13

Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶16

Petitioners-Surender Kapoor @ Surinder Singh Kapoor son of Roop Lal and his wife Kiran Kapoor, unfortunate parents-in-law of complainant Anuradha daughter of Manish Chadha, have directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., in a case registered against them along with their son Vikram Kapoor-main accused (husband), vide FIR No.91 dated 28.03.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC, by the police of Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala Cantt.

¶17

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶18

Kumar Naresh 2014.04.29 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM No.M-12885 of 2013 (O&M) -2-

¶20

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶21

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the petitioners are parents-in-law of the complainant. Very vague and general allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to them. All the main allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry, are assigned to Vikram Kapoor (husband) (non-petitioner), who was arrested, interrogated and was allowed bail by the trial Court. Not only that, the interim bail was granted to enable the petitioners to join the investigation, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (L.N. Mittal, J.), by way of order dated May 10, 2013.

¶22

At this stage, on instructions from ASI Naresh Kumar, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶23

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as

¶24

Kumar Naresh 2014.04.29 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

CRM No.M-12885 of 2013 (O&M) -3-

¶26

discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of order dated 10.05.2013, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶27

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this respect.

¶28

April 23, 2014 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

¶29

Kumar Naresh 2014.04.29 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Surender Kapoor @ Surinder Singh Kapoor & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Kapoor @ Surinder Singh Kapoor & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

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

Sandeep Kumar @ Kala Vs State of Haryana

Bikramjit Singh Verma @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kishan etc. Vs State of Haryana

Harminder Singh Vs State of Haryana