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 :::
