203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 14077 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : May 17, 2018
Gurpreet Singh …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Sukarchakia, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. S.K. Sandhir, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
***
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 114 dated 08.10.2016 under Sections 406/498A IPC
registered at Police Station Women, Ludhiana.
It is contended that the above said FIR was registered due to
temperamental differences between the parties. No specific allegations have
been levelled. Marriage was solemnised between the petitioner and the
complainant on 21.10.2015. They have been living separately since January,
2016. It is contended that there is no medical evidence on record to
substantiate the allegations of physical abuse against the petitioner.
Moreover, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., in this case, has been
presented. The petitioner is regularly appearing before the learned trial
Court. He undertakes not to misuse the concession of bail, if confirmed. It
is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.
Learned counsel for the complainant opposes this petition
while submitting that the conduct of the petitioner is not aboveboard. The
1 of 3
22-05-2018 00:09:45 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 14077 of 2017 (OM) -2-
petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (‘the
Act’ – for short) seeking restitution of conjugal rights at Moonak. The same
was transferred to Ludhiana on an application by the complainant. However,
the petitioner withdrew said petition and thereafter has again filed a petition
under Section 9 of the Act at Moonak. It is contended that the petitioner did
not display his bona fides in resolving the dispute in any manner in
mediation during the pendency of this petition, whereas the complainant
specifically expressed her desire to resolve the matter. It is further claimed
that even educational certificates of the complainant have not been returned.
Therefore, it is prayed that this petition be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is not in dispute that concerted efforts were made for an
amicable resolution of the dispute between the parties but the same could
not fructify. It is candidly admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
first petition under Section 9 of the Act was withdrawn by the petitioner
after it was transferred to Ludhiana. Another petition under Section 9 of the
Act has thereafter been submitted though it is sought to be explained that
first petition was withdrawn as there was assurance by the complainant that
she would join the matrimonial home. Even as on date the petitioner seeks
resumption of matrimonial ties and he does not wish to part ways with the
complainant. The complainant, however, submits that in view of the
unsavoury atmosphere created by the petitioner, it is not possible to resume
matrimonial ties. The matter had been adjourned to enable learned counsel
for the petitioner to seek instructions whether the petitioner is ready and
willing to deposit a sum of `1,00,000/- though without
any prejudice to his rights. Learned counsel for the
2 of 3
22-05-2018 00:09:45 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 14077 of 2017 (OM) -3-
petitioner submits that he has instructions to state that the petitioner at this
stage is not in a position to deposit any amount.
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 15.05.2017
is made absolute subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of `75,000/- with
the learned trial Court within three weeks from today. Needless to say the
said deposit shall be without any prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.
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)
May 17, 2018 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
22-05-2018 00:09:45 :::