Dismissed

Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Mar 2014CRM-M/35281/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a dowry harassment case. The Court observed that the complainant left with a minor child, creating a presumption of in-law hostility against Section 498A IPC. Granting bail would defeat the statute's objective. The petition was dismissed with liberty to approach again if compromised.

What did the court decide?

Petition for pre-arrest bail dismissed with liberty to approach the Court again in case the matter is compromised.

Bikramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM M-35281 of 2013 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CRM M-35281 of 2013

¶5

Date of Decision: March 24, 2014

Bikramjit Singh

…..Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶12

-.-

¶13

Present:Mr.V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab.

¶15

-.-

¶16

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶17

Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Mandeep Kaur alleging that she was married to the petitioner in the year 2012 and a son was born out of the wedlock but the petitioner and his family members had maltreated the complainant for demand of dowry.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the complainant has left the company of the petitioner without any reasonable

¶19

Gupta Sanjay 2014.03.26 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶20

CRM M-35281 of 2013

¶21

[2]

¶22

cause and that he has also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner is ready to resume cohabitation with the complainant but on account of misunderstanding that the petitioner will leave India and go to Australia where the brother of the petitioner had been residing before his death and that he would re-marry in Australia, the present case has been registered.

¶23

I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the allegations. In the present case, the complainant has left the company of the petitioner alongwith the minor child. It is the general presumption that a lady would not leave her husband’s residence unless and until, the in-laws create such a situation that she is compelled to leave the matrimonial home. The objective of Section 498 A IPC will be defeated in case the petitioner, who is the main accused is also granted the concession of pre-arrest bail.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage submits that since the petitioner is ready to resume cohabitation, another opportunity should be given to the parties to amicably resolve the dispute.

¶25

Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again in case the matter is compromised at any stage.

¶26

March 24, 2014 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

¶27

Gupta Sanjay 2014.03.26 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikramjit Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meenakshi Sharma and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Amanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gulzar Singh @ Pehalwan Vs State of Punjab

Seema Saini and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ajay Singh Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Hans Raj & Anr. Vs State of Punjab