SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arpinder @ Arpinderpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 May, 2018


Criminal Misc. No. M- 16518 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : May 01, 2018

Arpinder @ Arpinderpreet Singh …..Petitioner

State of Punjab and another ….Respondent


Present: Mr. Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. D.S. Sukarchakia, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.

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

petitioner in FIR No. 10 dated 23.04.2016 under Sections 406/498A IPC

registered at Police Station Kotli Surat Malhi, District Batala.

Contentions on behalf of the petitioner as noted while issuing

notice of motion read as under:-

” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas,
there was temperamental differences between the parties and
no specific allegation of demand of dowry was alleged.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is doing
private job, whereas, the complainant-wife is in government
service. He further submits that on the asking of the
complainant, the petitioner has started to reside separately even
in spite of the fact that he is the only son of his parents. In the
FIR, it has been mentioned by the complainant that the amount
from her account has been drawn for the last more than one
year as the card is also with the petitioner, whereas, it has been
mentioned in the statement recorded on 24.03.2015 that certain
articles in the purse including card were missed. The stand of

1 of 3
06-05-2018 21:00:18 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 16518 of 2016 (OM) -2-

the complainant is contradictory. Learned counsel also submits
that the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute with the
complainant and to abide by all terms and conditions to be
imposed by this Court or by the Investigating Officer.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that all dowry articles

belonging to the complainant as were with the petitioner have been

returned. Demand draft dated 23.07.2016 for a sum of `1,00,000/- was also

handed over in lieu of any of the articles etc., which may still allegedly be

with the petitioner. The said demand draft has been duly encashed by

respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is not averse to

depositing a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in favour of his minor child without

prejudice to his rights. It is further argued that no complaint was ever

lodged by respondent No. 2 regarding any kind of ill-treatment or

harassment till the registration of the FIR. There is no medical evidence to

substantiate the evidence of physical abuse. The petitioner, it is submitted,

has co-operated in the investigation and he undertakes not to abuse the

concession of anticipatory bail, if confirmed. It is, thus, prayed that this

petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition

while submitting that there are specific allegations against the petitioner.

Photocopy of the medico legal report of the complainant dated 18.11.2015

has been furnished in Court today to submit that she was indeed subjected to

physical abuse. The said medico legal report reflects abrasion on the left

shoulder and complaint of pain on the back of the chest though no external

injuries were visible. It is, however, not denied that no such incident of

November, 2015 finds mention in the FIR. The said medico legal report is

not available on the police file.

2 of 3
06-05-2018 21:00:19 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 16518 of 2016 (OM) -3-

It is noticed that strenuous efforts were made for an amicable

settlement between the parties, however, the same did not fructify as the

petitioner ultimately expressed deep reservations regarding resumption of

cohabitation due to intervening events whereas respondent No. 2 is not

ready for any kind of settlement except resumption of matrimonial ties.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

Joginder Singh, verifies that the petitioner has handed over the articles

belonging to the complainant. Demand draft for a sum of `1,00,000/- was

also submitted by the petitioner and the same was duly handed over to

respondent No. 2. It is verified that the petitioner has joined investigation

and 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 subject to the petitioner depositing a

sum of `2,00,000/- in favour of the minor child by way of FDR before the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur without prejudice his rights within six

weeks. The said FDR, however, be not encashed till the child attains


Consequently, order dated 13.05.2016 is made absolute.

(Lisa Gill)
May 01, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
06-05-2018 21:00:19 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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