SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amarjit Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 21 February, 2018


Criminal Misc. No. M- 30950 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : February 21, 2018

Amarjit Singh …..Petitioner


State of Haryana and another ….Respondents


Present: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

Respondent No. 2 in person.


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

petitioner in FIR No. 146 dated 24.07.2017 under Sections 323, 342, 406,

498A, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Babain, District Kurukshetra.

As per the allegations in the FIR, marriage between the

petitioner and the complainant took place on 24.10.2015. Allegations of

demand of dowry are raised qua the petitioner and all other family members.

Allegations are raised against the brother-in-law (Devar) as well as his wife,

who admittedly got married after the marriage of the complainant and the

petitioner. Allegations of molestation by the Devar are raised. It is stated

that the complainant was treated like a servant in the matrimonial home. All

her ornaments, it is stated, were snatched. The complainant, it is stated,

ultimately called the police, was rescued and the above said FIR registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated, in the above said FIR, which has in fact been

registered due to temperamental differences between the petitioner and

1 of 3
25-02-2018 00:52:10 :::
the complainant. The petitioner is stated to be working as a Granthi in a

Criminal Misc. No. M- 30950 of 2017 (OM) -2-

Gurudwara. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 hardly resided at the

matrimonial home for a total of three months after marriage. She is the only

child of the parents. The petitioner was, therefore, impressed upon to start

living at her parental home, which was not acceptable to the petitioner. It is

stated that respondent No. 2 initially left for her parental home on the

pretext of her B.A. examination in January, 2016. She returned in May

2016. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 was expecting and again taken back by

her parents on the said pretext. With the intervention of Panchayat, she was

brought back to the matrimonial home on 12.03.2017. An altercation took

place between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 19.03.2017, when he

discovered her in conversation with one Amandeep Singh. The petitioner

came to know that respondent No. 2 was in possession of four different SIM

cards. Respondent No. 2, it is alleged, created a scene on 20.03.2017, called

the police after the petitioner left for his work at the Gurudwara. She

ultimately left the matrimonial home on the said day. It is further submitted

that the petitioner expressed his readiness and willingness to resume

matrimonial ties with the complainant especially keeping in view the future

of the minor child but respondent No. 2 refused to come back. He also filed

a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner, it is

stated, has joined investigation and undertakes not to leave the country

without permission of the learned trial Court. He further undertakes not

abuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if confirmed. It is, thus, prayed

that this petition be allowed.

Respondent No. 2, duly identified by SI Ram Parkash, is

present in Court. She firmly stated that she does not wish to reside with the

2 of 3
25-02-2018 00:52:11 :::
petitioner at the matrimonial home due to acrimonious conditions and

Criminal Misc. No. M- 30950 of 2017 (OM) -3-

unhealthy environment. She is also not ready for any kind of full and final

settlement with the petitioner at this stage though the petitioner has offered

to amicably resolve the entire dispute in whatever manner as respondent No.

2 may like.

Perusal of the file reveals that the matter was placed before the

Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, however, mediation could

not take place as on most occasions the complainant did not come present.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Ram

Parkash, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and most of the

articles except some jewellery articles have been recovered. 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 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. In the event of his arrest, petitioner

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)
February 21, 2018 Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
25-02-2018 00:52:11 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation