Dismissed

Pooja v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Aug 2015CRM-M/25681/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. The judge held that the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the egregious allegations of inducing suicide of a married daughter disentitled her from receiving anticipatory bail, dismissing the petition without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, stating that the petitioner was disentitled due to specific role attributed in serious allegations.

Pooja Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-25681 of 2015 Date of decision : August 21, 2015

Pooja

....Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh

¶9

Present : Mr. Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. J.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate, for the complainant

¶10

Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral)

¶11

The allegations against petitioner Pooja in this anticipatory bail filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. are that she along with her husband Mohit had been physically assaulting and forcing the deceased Nishu married daughter of the complainant to commit suicide.

¶12

The contentions of counsel for petitioner Sh. GS Dhillon that there is neither any demand of dowry and 11 years have passed after the marriage of the deceased with her husband who is living abroad and neither there is any eye witness nor dying declaration has been recorded, have been controverted by learned State counsel assisted by Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate counsel for the complainant who has stressed the fact that in view

¶13

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2015.08.24 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶14

Criminal Misc. No. M-25681 of 2015

¶15

-2-

¶16

of the seriousness of the allegations, disentitles the petitioner anticipatory bail, who has been attributed specific role for the commission of offence.

¶17

Appreciating these submissions, keeping in view the prima facie role and without adverting to the merits of the case, the evident allegations wherein a specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, does not allow for grant of anticipatory bail which is rarity. Thus, finding no merit in the petition, the same stands dismissed.

¶18

August 21, 2015 'tiwana'

¶19

( Fateh Deep Singh ) Judge

¶20

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2015.08.24 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Pooja v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja 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

Ranjit Singh @ Nikka Vs State of Punjab

Daljinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kiranjeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Randeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Mandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.