SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Daljit Singh vs State Of Haryana on 12 July, 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.


CRM-M-6910-2021 (OM)
Date of decision : 12.07.2021

Daljit Singh …..Petitioner


State of Haryana …..Respondent


Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. Ambika Sood, Addl. AG Haryana

Mr. Viney Saini, Advocate for the complainant


Heard through video conferencing.

This is the second regular bail petition under Section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail in FIR No.205

dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 406, 498A, 376,

511, 496, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station

Nigdu, District Karnal. The first petition under Section 439 CrPC (CRM-

M-42438-2020) was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.12.2020.

The petitioner is the husband of the complainant. The other

accused persons named in the FIR are the father-in-law, brothers-in-law

and sisters-in-law of the complainant. As per the allegations in the FIR

1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-07-2021 01:48:06 :::
CRM-M-6910-2021 -2-

dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner and the complainant were

married on 23.02.2014 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies and there is a five

year old son out of the wedlock. The complainant alleges that her father

spent around rupees twenty five lakhs on the wedding on the asking of the

accused. A Maruti Celerio car, a Splendor motorcycle, gold ornaments,

istridhan was given to the accused. It is alleged that right from the

beginning the accused blamed the complainant for bringing less and

inferior dowry, that they had demanded an Innova car instead of the

Maruti Celerio given, rupees twelve lakhs was demanded for purchasing a

flat in Mohra. After three months the petitioner started beating the

complainant and started remaining in an inebriated state and used to beat

the complainant in a drunken state. When the complainant brought this to

the notice of the other accused they instead started blaming the

complainant. It is alleged that when the state of the petitioner deteriorated

because of his addiction, the in-laws of the complainant got the petitioner

admitted in a drug de-addiction centre for two years. During this period

the brother-in-law (accused no.3) of the complainant started making

advances towards her and wanted to develop illicit relations. Even the

other brother-in-law (accused no.5) made advances towards her and

forced her to have illicit relations with her. When the complainant brought

the acts of her brothers-in-law (accused nos.3 and 5) to the notice of her

sister-in-law (accused no.6) she, instead of counselling the brothers-in-

law, started siding with them and threatened the complainant that she

has illicit relations with them or she would lose her life. The

complainant was harassed and beaten by the accused for about four years.

2 of 7
13-07-2021 01:48:07 :::
CRM-M-6910-2021 -3-

It is alleged that the mother-in-law of the complainant died on 22.08.2019

when her parents and relatives had visited her in-laws house and brought

to the notice of the accused the atrocities being committed on the

complainant when the accused had sought forgiveness and assured them

that the complainant would not be harassed in future nor any demand for

dowry would be made nor she would be beaten. On 01.12.2019 when the

complainant was sleeping at night alone in her room her brother-in-law

(accused no.3) forcibly entered her room and laid down next to her while

she was sleeping and started molesting her to attempt committing rape on

her. The complainant made noise and wife of the accused no.3 i.e. her

sister-in-law (accused no.4) came and instead of admonishing her

husband started beating the complainant. The petitioner was not at home

on that day and when he came home in the morning the complainant told

him about the incident of the previous night when all the accused gathered

and locked the complainant in her room and beat her with sticks, kicked

her, boxed her which caused her injuries and her left eye was injured and

she lost her vision. The complainant rang up her home and her mother

came and took her and seeing her condition she was taken to PGI

Chandigarh where her eye was operated upon. The other injuries suffered

by the complainant were also got treated. A panchayat was held at the

house of the accused who abused the complainant and the other persons

who had come and threatened that the complainant should bring Innova

car and rupees twelve lakhs for the plot otherwise she would not be

allowed to enter the house and took the istridhan of the complainant in

their possession and locked the room of the complainant and asked

3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-07-2021 01:48:07 :::
CRM-M-6910-2021 -4-

everyone to leave otherwise they would be killed. The complainant

returned to her home and has been staying at her parents house since then.

It is also alleged that the petitioner was convicted earlier, which fact was

hidden before the marriage by the accused, and he threatens the

complainant that he has committed murder earlier and will also kill the


The counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the case. The complainant has levelled false

allegations against the petitioner and his family members many years after

their marriage, the Maruti Celerio car was sold by the father of the

complainant and the motor cycle was sold by the husband and wife after

agreement. He has contended that the FIR was filed after a long delay and

there are no dates given therein about when the complainant was mal-

treated or beaten. There was no injury to the eye of the complainant as

alleged in the FIR and infact she had a pre-existing problem in her left eye

which she got treated in December 2019. He has also contended that after

the withdrawal of the first petition for regular bail the circumstances have

changed as the investigation stands completed and final report under

Section 173 CrPC has been presented in Court.

Learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition and has

relied upon the averments made in the status report dated 02.03.2021 and

the short reply filed by the State. In the status report it is inter-alia averred

that during the course of investigations the statement of the complainant

was recorded and Sections 376/511 IPC were added. An application for

medical examination of the complainant was moved before the Medical

4 of 7
13-07-2021 01:48:07 :::
CRM-M-6910-2021 -5-

Officer but the complainant refused to get her medical examination

conducted. The statement of the complainant under Section 164 CrPC was

recorded by the Magistrate. Thereafter, on the basis of the investigations,

no involvement of Jasbir Kaur (accused no.4), Jasbir Singh (accused no.5)

and Manjit Kaur (accused no.6) was found and they were kept in Column

No.2. The petitioner and accused no.3 were arrested on 17.11.2020 while

accused no.2 was arrested on 07.01.2021. On the basis of the disclosure

statement suffered by the petitioner the dowry articles were recovered and

were released to the complainant on superdari. It is also stated that the

Maruti Celerio car was sold by the father of the complainant for

Rs.2,50,000/- while the motorcycle was sold by the complainant and the

petitioner by mutual consent. The challan has been prepared against the

petitioner and accused nos.2 and 3 and has been submitted in Court

though the charges are yet to be framed. The status report also mentions

that in FIR No.54 dated 23.02.2007 under Sections 323, 324, 302 IPC the

petitioner was convicted for life imprisonment vide order dated

15.05.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala which, on

appeal by the petitioner, was modified to one under Section 304(II) IPC

by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2013 and the sentence was reduced

to one already undergone. In the short reply filed by the State the medico

legal case summary of the complainant prepared by the Government

Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh has been put on

record according to which the complainant had undergone an elective

surgery of the left eye. It is argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender

and has committed serious offences, the charges are yet to be framed and

5 of 7
13-07-2021 01:48:07 :::
CRM-M-6910-2021 -6-

several witnesses are to be examined, the petitioner may abscond or

influence the witnesses and, therefore, the petitioner ought not to be

released on bail.

Counsel for the complainant has argued on the same lines as

the State counsel and also submitted that the complainant was badly

beaten by the petitioner and her left eye was also damaged. She was

harassed and subjected to taunts and beatings for not bringing sufficient

dowry and the accused demanded more dowry from her and her parents.

The complainant was sexually harassed by none other than her brothers-

in-law and thus the petitioner be not granted any bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the present case the last incident reported by the

complainant is of 01/02.12.2019 whereas the FIR was lodged on

29.10.2020. The dowry articles have been recovered and stand returned to

the complainant on superdari. The complainant refused to undergo a

medical examination and as per the hospital she underwent an elective

surgery on 04/05.12.2019. The allegations of sexual harassment and rape

are not against the petitioner. The father of the complainant himself sold

the Maruti Celerio car while the motorcycle was sold by the complainant

and petitioner by choice. No doubt the petitioner stands convicted for an

offence under Section 302(II) IPC and has undergone the sentence qua the

same. However, there is no other case against him after 2007. The

investigations stand completed and no further recoveries are to be made.

In view of the above and without commenting upon the

merits of the case and considering the fact that the trial is likely to take

6 of 7
13-07-2021 01:48:07 :::
CRM-M-6910-2021 -7-

some time to conclude especially in view of the prevailing conditions on

account of COVID-19 Pandemic and also the fact that the petitioner has

been behind bars since 17.11.2020, no useful purpose would be served by

keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further. This Court, therefore,

deems this to be a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. The

petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail

bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty

Magistrate/Trial Court concerned.

However, the Prosecution will always be at liberty to apply

for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found to be misusing the

concession of bail in any manner.

It is also made clear that any observation made herein shall

not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Disposed off.

July 12, 2021 (ALKA SARIN)
parkash JUDGE

Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO

7 of 7
13-07-2021 01:48:07 :::

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