201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No. M- 40776 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : January 30, 2018
Jatinder Singh and others …..Petitioners
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Duggal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners in Complaint No. 37 of 2015 dated 15.12.2015 under Sections
It is submitted that the complaint in question has been filed due
to temperamental differences between petitioner No. 1 and his wife –
respondent No. 2. Moreover, the petitioners could not appear before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on 05.10.2016 due to noting
of a wrong date by the counsel. Due to this reason, their application for bail
was dismissed on 05.10.2016. The petitioners undertake to face the
proceedings and appear before the learned trial Court on each and every
date fixed. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition
while stating that serious allegations are levelled against all the petitioners.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner No. 1 is the husband. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 the
parents-in-law and petitioner No. 4 is the brother-in-law of respondent No.
1 of 2
04-02-2018 16:03:47 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 40776 of 2016 (OM) -2-
2. It is not in dispute that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 09.03.2014. It is stated that she was
subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by all the petitioners due to
insufficient dowry. She was ultimately thrown out of matrimonial home on
13.08.2014. Despite efforts, she could not be rehabilitated in the
matrimonial home. Parties were referred to the Mediation and Conciliation
Centre of this Court but mediation was not successful. Ultimately,
respondent No. 2 expressed her willingness to part ways with petitioner
No. 1 in case he would deposit a sum of `7,66,000/- as full and final
settlement of all the claims – past, present and future in respect to alimony,
maintenance etc. Despite opportunity, no reasonable proposal came forth
from petitioner No. 1.
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 in respect to petitioners No. 2 to 4.
Consequently, bail afforded to petitioners No. 2 to 4 by the learned trial
Court pursuant to order dated 16.11.2016 be made absolute subject to their
furnishing fresh bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial
However, keeping in view the nature of allegations and the
conduct of petitioner No. 1, this petition is dismissed qua petitioner No. 1.
January 30, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
04-02-2018 16:03:48 :::