Allowed

Farukh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Nov 2020CRM-M/10290/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323, 34 IPC. The court accepted the petition, making interim directions absolute, subject to conditions requiring appearance, investigation cooperation, and adherence to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition accepted; interim directions made absolute; anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions of appearance, investigation cooperation, and Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. compliance.

Farukh Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

¶2

CRM-M-10290-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 24.11.2020

Farukh … Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶8

Present:Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG Haryana.

¶9

(Proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

¶10

¶11

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.264, dated 20.5.2017, Police Station Sector 58, Faridabad, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323, 34 IPC.

¶13

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Aabida wherein it has been alleged that she was married to petitioner Farukh on 7.6.2013 as per Muslim rites and that her father had spent an amount of 20 lakhs and had also given a Balero vehicle apart from gold jewellery but her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-inlaw and sister-in-law were somehow not satisfied and demanded another 5 lakhs and a Bullet motorcycle and used to taunt and harass her.

¶14

MOHAN SINGH 2020.11.24 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

- 2 - CRM-M-10290-2020 (O&M)

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case on account of there being some differences amongst him and his wife and that all the allegations as levelled in the FIR have been concocted.

¶17

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner, being the husband, is the prime accused, no case for grant of bail is made out. The learned State counsel has, however, informed that pursuant to interim directions, the petitioner has since joined investigation.

¶18

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

¶19

Having regard to the fact that the matter infact arises out of some kind of matrimonial discord and that the petitioner has already joined investigation, his custodial interrogation is not warranted. The petition, as such, is accepted and the interim directions issued vide order dated 8.7.2020 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear and join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶20

November 24, 2020 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) mohan JUDGE

¶21

Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶22

MOHAN SINGH 2020.11.24 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Farukh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farukh 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

Raja Vs State of Haryana

Rajan Verma Vs State of Punjab

Sunita Rani Vs State of Punjab

Iqbal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Mehtab Hassan Vs State of Haryana