Allowed

Gurmandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Nov 2020CRM-M/14617/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted anticipatory bail to petitioners charged under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, characterizing the case as stemming from matrimonial discord. The court made interim directions absolute, allowed investigation cooperation, and suggested mediation.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail by making interim directions absolute; petitioner must appear regularly before trial court and abide by its conditions; parties directed to seek mediation.

Gurmandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

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

¶2

(I) CRM-M-14617-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 4.11.2020

¶3

Gurmandeep Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent

¶4

(II) CRM-M-13570-2020 (O&M) Kewal Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶6

Present:Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners(s). Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab, assisted by SI Jasveer Singh.

¶7

Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶8

(Proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

¶9

¶10

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral)

¶11

MOHAN SINGH 2020.11.05 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

CRM-M Nos. 14617 & 13570 of 2020 (O&M)

¶13

- 2 -

¶14

This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions wherein petitioners Gurmandeep Singh, Kewal Singh and Hardeep Kaur, have approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered against them vide FIR No.40, dated 13.3.2020, Police Station Barnala, District Barnala, under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC.

¶15

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Manpreet Kaur wherein it is alleged that her marriage with petitioner Gurmandeep Singh was solemnized on 13.6.2017 and that huge amount was spent on the marriage. It is alleged that the petitioners who are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant were somehow not happy with the dowry and used to harass her and maltreat her.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present case is in fact a case arising out of matrimonial discord which has been given the colour of a criminal offence and that all the allegations as levelled in the FIR are false.

¶17

Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has however opposed the petition and has submitted that since there are specific and categoric allegations against the petitioners, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned State counsel has however, submitted that the petitioners, pursuant to interim directions, have joined investigation.

¶18

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and bearing

¶19

MOHAN SINGH 2020.11.05 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M Nos. 14617 & 13570 of 2020 (O&M)

¶21

- 3 -

¶22

in mind the nature of offence which apparently have arisen out of some matrimonial discord and while also noticing that the petitioners have since joined investigation, it is not a case warranting custodial interrogation of the petitioners. The petitions, as such, are accepted and interim directions issued vide orders dated 10.6.2020 (in CRMM-14617) and 2.6.2020 (in CRM-M-13570-2020) are made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioners shall appear regularly before the trial Court and shall abide by the conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court.

¶23

Since during the course of arguments it was submitted by counsel for the petitioners as well as by counsel for the complainant that both of them are open for settling the matter amicably, it shall always be open to them to probe the possibility of the compromise which would certainly be in the interest of the parties. As the learned counsel for the complainant has informed that Mediation Centre at Barnala is functioning normally, the parties may aproach Secretary, DLSA, Barnala, for making efforts for effecting some mediation.

¶24

November 4, 2020 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) mohan JUDGE

¶25

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

¶26

MOHAN SINGH 2020.11.05 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurmandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmandeep 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amro @ Nikki Vs State of Punjab

Kanta Vs State of Haryana

Rajinder Prasad Tiwari Vs State of Punjab

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kewal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rajjinder Singh @ Raju Vs State of Punjab