Bijender Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 October, 2017

CRM No.M-24720 of 2016
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M- 24720 of 2016(OM)
Date of Decision: October 26 , 2017.

Bijender Singh …… PETITIONER (s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another …… RESPONDENT (s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

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

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

None for the complainant/respondent No.2.
*****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
*****

LISA GILL, J.

The petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the complainant seeks

the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.37 dated 13.06.2016 under

Sections 323/34/376/406/498A/506 IPC registered at Police Station Women,

District Sonipat.

It is submitted that the petitioner, who is an old man suffering from

various ailments, has been falsely implicated in this case only because of his

relationship with the complainant and her husband. It is further contended that

1 of 3
03-11-2017 02:32:16 :::
CRM No.M-24720 of 2016
-2-

the complainant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not reiterated the

allegations attracting the rigours of Section 376 IPC against the present

petitioner. The petitioner’s son and wife (husband and mother-in-law of the

complainant, respectively) have been afforded the concession of anticipatory

bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. The petitioner has

joined investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. Moreover,

petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed by the

petitioner’s son. It is specifically mentioned therein that the complainant was

having an affair with another person, namely, Kishan and the relationship

persisted after marriage as well.

It is to be noted that this matter was kept pending in order to

explore the possibility of an amicable resolution of matrimonial dispute between

the petitioner’s son and the complainant/respondent No.2. Despite service, none

had appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. The complainant/respondent No.2

as well as her father were duly intimated of the date fixed in this case by the

concerned police official as well. However, none appeared on behalf of

respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the State on instructions which were received

on previous occasion, submits that the complainant has even refused to accept

the dowry articles handed over by the accused persons. It is verified that the

petitioner has joined investigation. He 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

2 of 3
03-11-2017 02:32:17 :::
CRM No.M-24720 of 2016
-3-

true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances as above but

without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,

this petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 24.05.2017 is made absolute.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall

be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

( LISA GILL )
October 26 , 2017. JUDGE
‘om’

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

3 of 3
03-11-2017 02:32:17 :::

Leave a Comment

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