Surinder Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 3 July, 2017

206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. M- No. 16806 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : July 03, 2017

Surinder Singh and another …..Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab ….Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Tushant Deep Garg, Advocate
for the complainant.

***
LISA GILL, J.

The petitioners, who are the parents-in-law of the complainant,

pray for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 19 dated 20.04.2017

registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC at Police Station Women Cell,

Bathinda.

It is submitted that both the petitioners are living separately

from the complainant and her husband i.e. the son of the petitioners. It is

further contended that they are roped in only because of their relationship

with the complainant. The allegations in the FIR against them are absolutely

vague, general and incorrect. The complainant in fact tried to forcibly enter

into the house of the petitioners on 02.03.2017. In the ensuing scuffle,

injuries were received by petitioner No. 2 and Smt. Balwant Kaur i.e. the

mother and mother-in-law of petitioner No. 1 and 2 respectively. The

complainant also received four simple injuries in this occurrence.

The petitioners’ son has been afforded the concession of regular bail.

1 of 2
08-07-2017 21:13:42 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 16806 of 2017 (OM) -2-

Furthermore, the petitioners have joined investigation pursuant to interim

order dated 11.05.2017. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jagdev

READ  M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006

Singh, Police Station Women Cell, Bathinda, affirms that the petitioners

were living separately from the complainant and her husband. The

petitioners are verified to have joined investigation, however, recovery of

certain gold articles, it is submitted, is yet to be effected. The same is

seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits

that as the complainant and her husband were living separately all articles

were with them and have been recovered.

Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed this

petition. However, it is not denied that a petition under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed by the petitioners’ son and the

same is pending.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the

petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the

witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

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, order dated 11.05.2017

is made absolute.

(Lisa Gill)
July 03, 2017 Judge
rts

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
08-07-2017 21:13:43 :::

Leave a Comment

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