Anjum Sahid vs State Of Haryana on 1 June, 2017

260 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. M- No. 8352 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : June 01, 2017

Anjum Sahid …..Petitioner
Versus

State of Haryana ….Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjay K. Saini, AAG, Haryana.
***
LISA GILL, J.

Prayer is for bail pending trial to the petitioner in FIR No. 256

dated 11.12.2015 registered under Sections 343, 366, 376D, 34 IPC at

Police Station Bahin, District Palwal.

It is submitted that the co-accused i.e. the father-in-law and the

brother-in-law of the complainant have been found innocent. It is only the

present petitioner, who is being proceeded against and he is admittedly the

complainant’s husband. Charge under Section 376 IPC has been framed

against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as there is no

dispute regarding the petitioner being the husband of the complainant,

sustainability of the charge under Section 376 IPC is doubtful. Furthermore,

the complainant had earlier lodged FIR No. 87 dated 21.10.2014 under

Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC. Matrimonial discord between the complainant

and the petitioner is the cause of registration of the present FIR. The

petitioner is in custody since 08.05.2016. Moreover, the material witnesses

including the complainant have since deposed before the learned trial Court.

It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Bharat

1 of 2
10-06-2017 15:51:18 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 8352 of 2017 (OM) -2-

Pal, Police Station Bahin does not deny that the allegations raised by the

READ  Dr.Santosh Kumar Samanta vs In Re:- Amit Chowrasia on 15 May, 2017

complainant against her father-in-law and brother-in-law i.e. the father and

the brother respectively of the petitioner were found incorrect. It is only the

petitioner who is being proceeded against for the offence punishable under

Section 376 IPC. FIR No. 87 dated 21.10.2014 under Sections 498A, 406,

506 IPC is verified to be lodged by the complainant against her husband and

other family members. Learned counsel for the State affirms that after

presentation of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. charge has been

framed.

The trial, in this case, is not likely to conclude in the near

future. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is

likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from

deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. No useful purpose shall

be solved by keeping the petitioner incarcerated any longer. Keeping in

view the facts and circumstances noted above but without expressing any

opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just and expedient to allow

this petition.

Consequently, the petitioner be released on bail pending trial

subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

It is reiterated that none of the observations made herein above

are a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the

trial.

(Lisa Gill)
June 01, 2017 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
10-06-2017 15:51:19 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *