Allowed

Richu Rani v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Sept 2021CRM-M/25256/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to Richu Rani and Kewal Kumar in separate petitions regarding an FIR alleging a domestic dispute involving assault. The court noted the quarrel had a matrimonial origin, no specific injuries were attributed to the petitioners, and they had joined the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for anticipatory bail accepted and interim directions made absolute; petitioners directed to join investigation and abide by Section 438(2) Cr.P.C conditions.

Richu Rani Vs State of Haryana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

CRM-M-25256-2021 (O&M) and CRM-M-29051-2021 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

(I)	CRM-M-25256-2021 (O&M)
Richu Rani	...Petitioner Versus
State of Haryana	...Respondent
(II)	CRM-M-29051-2021 (O&M)
Kewal Kumar	...Petitioner
	Versus
State of Haryana	...Respondent

¶5

Date of Decision: 23.09.2021

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶7

Present: Mr. Rishi Pal Singh Garttan, Advocate, for the petitioner/s.

¶8

Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana assisted by ASI Manoj Kumar.

¶9

(proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

¶10

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)

¶11

This order shall dispose of the above-mentioned two petitions filed on behalf of Richu Rani and Kewal Kumar, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them vide FIR No.107 dated 03.05.2021 at Police Station City Pehowa, Kurukshetra, under Sections 308/323/34/506 IPC.

¶12

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Happy (husband of petitioner No.1), wherein it is alleged that on 02.05.2021 a quarrel had taken place between him and his wife Richu Rani, but the matter was later on resolved. On 03.05.2021, the complainant’s wife called her

¶13

VANDANA YADAV 2021.09.24 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRM-M-25256-2021 (O&M) and CRM-M-29051-2021 (O&M)

¶15

¶16

parental family i.e. his brothers-in-law Sunny and Sahil as well as his maternal father-in-law Kewal and they reached at the shop of complainant’s uncle and called the complainant there. The complainant alongwith his cousin Sachin and also his wife reached there. However, all of a sudden his brother-in-law Sahil slapped the complainant. It is alleged that Sunny, Kewal and complainant’s wife Richu Rani started beating the complainant. Sahil is alleged to have given a blow with baseball bat on complainant’s head. However, when the neighbours came to rescue him, the accused went away from the spot while issuing threats to eliminate him.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that they have falsely been implicated in the instant case merely on account of a matrimonial discord between the complainant and his wife Richu Rani (petitioner) and that, in any case, even if the allegations as levelled are taken to be correct, it is the co-accused Sahil, who is alleged to have caused an injury with the help of a baseball bat and that no specific injury is attributed to the petitioners.

¶18

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioners are specifically named in the FIR and are specifically alleged to have given beatings to the complainant, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioners, pursuant to interim directions issued by this Court, have since joined investigation and are not required for any custodial interrogation.

¶19

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

¶20

It is not in dispute that the complainant as well as petitioner Richu

¶21

VANDANA YADAV 2021.09.24 10:20 Rani are husband and wife and apparently the matter has arisen out of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-25256-2021 (O&M) and CRM-M-29051-2021 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

some kind of matrimonial dispute. In any case, none of the petitioners is stated to be armed with any weapon and are not attributed any specific injury. The petitioners are also reported to have joined investigation and are not required for any custodial interrogation. In these circumstances, both the petitions merit acceptance and are hereby accepted. The interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2021 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioners shall join investigation as and when calledupon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶25

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

¶26

23.09.2021 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) VY JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶27

VANDANA YADAV 2021.09.24 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Richu Rani v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Richu Rani 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

Paramjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Shubham and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Arora Vs State of Punjab

Karaj Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mosam and Others Vs State of Haryana