Allowed

Surender Kumar Batra v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Dec 2014CRM-M/15371/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail and made interim directions absolute, ordering the petitioner to continue cooperating with the investigation and abide by statutory conditions in a case involving dowry harassment and cruelty.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted and interim directions made absolute on conditions of cooperating with investigation and abiding by Section 438(2).

Surender Kumar Batra Vs State of Haryana — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

CRM-M-15371-2014 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-15371-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 12, 2014

Surender Kumar Batra

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Pawan Jhanda, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

Mr.Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.(Oral)

¶15

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C.,

¶16

is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Surender Kumar Batra, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A and 354-B read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.147, dated 22.04.2014, registered at Police Station, Saran, Faridabad.

¶17

Learned counsel contends that a perusal of FIR would clearly show that there is not an iota of word to connect the

¶18

MEENU 2014.12.12 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

CRM-M-15371-2014 (O&M)

¶21

petitioner with the offence punishable under Section 354-B, IPC; husband of the complainant has already been arrested and granted regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction; the husband of the complainant had offered to effect the recovery of dowry articles but the complainant refused to identify the same and, as such, the Investigating Officer did not recover the said articles and that in compliance of the order, dated 06.05.2014, the petitioner did join the investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Sanjay Kumar of Police Station, Saran, Faridabad, very fairly concedes that the petitioner has joined the investigation but the recovery could not be effected.

¶23

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that in earlier complaint submitted by the complainant (Annexure R2/1), there were specific allegations against the petitioner attracting the mischief of Section 354-B, IPC. He further contends that the said complaint be read as part of the FIR.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶25

MEENU 2014.12.12 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶26

- 3 -

¶27

CRM-M-15371-2014 (O&M)

¶28

During the course of arguments, it was conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that husband of the complainant was arrested and granted bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction while the mother-in-law was granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Session at Faridabad. After arrest of the husband of the complainant, he offered to the investigating agency to take into possession the dowry articles, but the complainant refused to identify the same and, as such, the same could not be taken into possession by the police. The petitioner, as per the Investigating Officer, has joined the investigation and no more required except for recovery of the said articles. The husband and mother-in-law of the complainant have already been granted bail and, as such, interim directions issued by this Court vide order, dated 06.05.2014, are made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid

¶29

down under Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.

¶30

December 12, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) meenu Judge

¶31

MEENU 2014.12.12 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Surender Kumar Batra v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Kumar Batra 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

Gurpreet Singh @ Happy Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Vs State of Haryana

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Ankur Mittal Vs Naveen Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.

Alhcon Ready Mix Concrete Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Sachin Carrier &Anr

Mohinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab