SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Himanshu Singla vs State Of Punjab on 30 January, 2018

202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M- 12088 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : January 30, 2018

Himanshu Singla …..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ….Respondent

Criminal Misc. No. M- 2793 of 2017 (OM)

Narinder Kumar Singla …..Petitioner
Versus

State of Punjab and another ….Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. A.G.S. Dhillon, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Siddharath Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No. 2/complainant.

***
LISA GILL, J.

This order shall decide Criminal Misc. Nos. M- 12088 and

2793 of 2017. For convenience, facts are extracted from Criminal

Misc. No. M- 12088 of 2017.

Prayer in these petitions is for grant of anticipatory bail to

the petitioners in FIR No. 0056 dated 18.11.2016 under Sections

406/498A IPC registered at Police Station Women Cell, Bathinda,

District Bathinda.

It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely

implicated in this case. Petitioner – Himanshu Singla is the husband

1 of 4
04-02-2018 15:44:06 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 12088 of 2017 (OM) -2-

and Narinder Kumar Singla is the father-in-law of the complainant.

Marriage between the petitioner – Himanshu Singla and the

complainant was solemnised on 28.11.2010. It is stated that the

complainant was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment from the

very beginning on account of bringing insufficient dowry. Various

demands of dowry were raised by the petitioners and other family

members. The complainant stated that she was forced to stay away

from the matrimonial home from January, 2014 to July, 2014. Rs. 2

lakhs was given to the accused and the complainant was brought back

to the matrimonial home but it transpired that this was done only

because her younger brother-in-law was to be married. Ultimately, the

complainant, it is stated, was thrown out of the matrimonial home on

25.08.2016 after being physically abused as well on the said date.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

allegations in the FIR are absolutely incorrect. There is nothing on

record to show any kind of ill-treatment meted out to the complainant

from 2010 till the lodging of the FIR in question. In reality, the

problem started when the younger brother of Himanshu Singla got

married in August, 2016. The petitioners have always offered for

resumption of matrimonial ties but the complainant has refused. The

petitioner – husband had expressed his readiness and willingness to

take up a residence, separate and away, from his family and cohabit

with the complainant. He further agreed to deposit some amount by

way of FDR as security of sorts for the complainant, if she agreed to

2 of 4
04-02-2018 15:44:07 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 12088 of 2017 (OM) -3-

come and reside with him. However, the complainant has not come

forward to accept the proposal. It is submitted that the petitioners

undertake to face the proceedings and not to misuse the concession of

anticipatory bail, if afforded to them It is, thus, prayed that these

petitions be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

Jagdev Singh, verifies that the petitioner – Narinder Kumar Singla has

joined investigation, however, petitioner – Himanshu Singla has not

joined investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that as there

was no specific direction by this Court nor he was called upon by the

investigating agency, therefore, petitioner – Himanshu Singla has not

joined investigation. However, he undertakes to join investigation as

and when required by the investigating agency. There is no denial by

the State that the petitioner was not called upon to join investigation.

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.

No useful purpose shall be solved by taking the petitioners in custody.

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 these petitions. Consequently,

order dated 30.01.2017 passed in CRM-M-2793 of 2017 is made

3 of 4
04-02-2018 15:44:07 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 12088 of 2017 (OM) -4-

absolute and in the event of arrest of the petitioner – Himanshu Singla

(in CRM-M-12088 of 2017) he shall be released on bail to the

satisfaction of Investigating Officer/ Arresting officer. He shall appear

before the Investigating agency as and when required. Petitioner shall

comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Lisa Gill)
January 30, 2018 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
04-02-2018 15:44:07 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh