SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 March, 2018

CRM No.M-41762 of 2016


Criminal Misc. No.M- 41762 of 2016(OM)
Date of Decision: March 08 , 2018.

Darshan Singh …… PETITIONER (s)


State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Gaurav Partap S.Pathania, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.


The petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR

No.17 dated 10.03.2016 under Sections 498A/406/494/120B IPC, registered at

Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this

case. The complainant, in fact, had left the matrimonial home in the year 2009.

Marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the complainant in the year

2007. The present FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive after an

explained delay. Moreover, the matter was compromised between the parties on

21.09.2009 as reflected in the document attached as Annexure P2 (Talaqnama)

1 of 3
11-03-2018 05:17:44 :::
CRM No.M-41762 of 2016

with this petition whereby it was decided between the parties that they would

dissolve their marriage. A sum of `1,00,000/- was handed over to the

complainant at that time, though it is not denied that there is no substantive

proof of the said amount being handed over to the complainant. The

complainant, it is alleged, is living with another person. Reference is made to a

document (Annexure P3) purportedly issued by the Gram Panchayat, village

Azizpur. The petitioner, it is submitted, has joined investigation. It is thus

prayed that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition while

refuting the averments that any divorce was ever sought or granted to the parties.

To the contrary the petitioner, it is submitted, has solemnized second marriage

without seeking divorce from the complainant and children are also born out of

this illegal alliance. Allegations of the complainant having remarried or living

with any other person are denied being incorrect. It is stated that the complainant

is living in her parental home. Her mother has recently passed away. Moreover

despite various opportunities, the petitioner did not come forward for effective

mediation. He has not come present despite a specific direction by this Court

neither have the litigation/travelling expenses of `12,000/- been handed over to

respondent No.2 as directed by this Court. It is thus prayed that this petition be


Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Devinder

Singh, submits that the petitioner has joined investigation, however no recovery

was effected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, all dowry

2 of 3
11-03-2018 05:17:45 :::
CRM No.M-41762 of 2016

articles stood returned in September, 2009 itself.

Be that as it may, conduct of the petitioner before this Court is to be

deprecated. Litigation/travelling expenses as directed by this Court vide orders

12.09.2017 and 08.12.2017 have not been deposited till date. Specific directions

were issued to the petitioner to remain present before this Court. Adjournments

were sought on one pretext or the other on behalf of the petitioner. However, he

did not come present in deference to the said orders. Ultimately, interim bail

granted in favour of the petitioner way-back in November 2016 was vacated. At

this juncture, it is to be noted that the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda while

deciding the petitioner’s bail application on 13.07.2016 noticed similar conduct

of the petitioner wherein he did not appear before the said court. It is relevant to

note that in the present proceedings the petitioner joined investigation after

being granted indulgence thrice by this Court. It is clear that the petitioner had

sought to delay the proceedings to enjoy the interim relief.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, especially

the conduct of the petitioner as well as non-payment of the litigation/travelling

expenses to respondent No.2, no ground is made out for grant of concession of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

This petition is accordingly dismissed.

March 08 , 2018. JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
11-03-2018 05:17:45 :::

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