Harjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 16 August, 2017

209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. M- No. 41314 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : August 16, 2017

Harjit Singh …..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ….Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Devinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.

None for respondent No. 2.

***
LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in FIR No. 58 dated 09.10.2016 registered under Section 406,

498A IPC at Police Station Women, District Amritsar.

It is submitted that the above said FIR has been registered due

to temperamental differences with the complainant i.e. his wife. It is further

submitted that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 on 17.05.2016 which is pending. Moreover, the

petitioner suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant’s brother.

Reference is made to Medico Legal Report dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure

P-3). The present FIR was registered on 09.10.2016. Moreover, the

petitioner has returned all articles belonging to the complainant. He has

joined investigation pursuant to order dated 21.11.2016. The petitioner, it is

submitted, made all efforts to facilitate mediation as well but the same has

failed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of `2500/- per

1 of 2
19-08-2017 14:26:28 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 41314 of 2016 (OM) -2-

month is being regularly paid by the petitioner as maintenance for the

minor child and the complainant. He undertakes to deposit the said amount

regularly without any default. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jatinder

Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation though it is

submitted that certain gold articles are yet to be recovered. However,

learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in Prit

Pal Singh versus State of Punjab and another 2014 (5) RCR (Criminal)

771 to urge that the concession of anticipatory bail should not be denied

merely on the ground of certain recoveries to be effected.

It is verified by learned counsel for the State that the petitioner

is not involved in any other criminal case. There are no allegations on

behalf of the State that the 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.

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 21.11.2016

is made absolute.

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)
August 16, 2017 Judge
rts

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

2 of 2
19-08-2017 14:26:29 :::

Leave a Comment

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