SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Balbir vs State Of Haryana on 30 April, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218
CRM-M-12984-2021
Date of decision: 30.04.2021

BALBIR …..Petitioner
Versus

STATE OF HARYANA …..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI

Present : Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana
for the respondent-State.

****

ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, J (ORAL)

(The case has been taken up for hearing through video

conferencing.)

The petitioner has filed the present (first) petition under

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of

regular bail in case FIR No. 0889 dated 18.11.2020 registered under

Sections 323, 328, 354-A, 376, 406, 498A, 506 and 511 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) at Police

Station Karnal Sadar, District Karnal.

The petitioner being in custody has filed the present

petition for grant of regular bail.

The petition has been opposed by the respondent-State.

However, no reply has been filed by the respondent-State.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

State Counsel and have gone through the relevant record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

1 of 3
06-06-2021 16:38:44 :::
CRM-M-12984-2021 -2-

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of bare

verbal allegations of his wife. Earlier FIR No. 581 dated 17.08.2020

was registered under Sections 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of

the IPC at Police Station Karnal Sadar, District Karnal in which the

petitioner was granted bail. Thereupon, the complainant lodged the

present second FIR by moulding her statement within one month on

almost similar allegations. There is no cogent evidence in support of the

allegations made against the petitioner. The petitioner is ready and

willing to keep his wife and he has also filed petition for restitution of

conjugal rights under Section 9 of the the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

but his wife left his parental house on her own sweet will under the

influence of her parents. The trial is likely to take long time due to

restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of infection of Covid-19 and

no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner in

custody. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted regular bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that

the petitioner has committed heinous matrimonial offences by

maltreating his wife as mentioned in the FIR. In view of the nature of

accusation and gravity of offences, the petitioner does not deserve grant

of regular bail. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

In view of the above referred facts and circumstances of

the case, nature of accusation and evidence against the petitioner, the

factum of the petitioner being on bail in earlier FIR lodged by the

complainant-wife, period of his custody and also the fact that trial is

likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the

spread of infection of Covid-19 but without commenting on the merits

2 of 3
06-06-2021 16:38:44 :::
CRM-M-12984-2021 -3-

of the case, I am inclined to extend the concession of regular bail to the

petitioner.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the

petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing of

personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief

Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

30.04.2021 (ARUN KUMAR TYAGI)
Vishal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
06-06-2021 16:38:44 :::

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