SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 17 May, 2018


Criminal Misc. No. M- 14077 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : May 17, 2018

Gurpreet Singh …..Petitioner


State of Punjab and another ….Respondents


Present: Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.

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

Mr. S.K. Sandhir, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.

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

petitioner in FIR No. 114 dated 08.10.2016 under Sections 406/498A IPC

registered at Police Station Women, Ludhiana.

It is contended that the above said FIR was registered due to

temperamental differences between the parties. No specific allegations have

been levelled. Marriage was solemnised between the petitioner and the

complainant on 21.10.2015. They have been living separately since January,

2016. It is contended that there is no medical evidence on record to

substantiate the allegations of physical abuse against the petitioner.

Moreover, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., in this case, has been

presented. The petitioner is regularly appearing before the learned trial

Court. He undertakes not to misuse the concession of bail, if confirmed. It

is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the complainant opposes this petition

while submitting that the conduct of the petitioner is not aboveboard. The

1 of 3
22-05-2018 00:09:45 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 14077 of 2017 (OM) -2-

petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (‘the

Act’ – for short) seeking restitution of conjugal rights at Moonak. The same

was transferred to Ludhiana on an application by the complainant. However,

the petitioner withdrew said petition and thereafter has again filed a petition

under Section 9 of the Act at Moonak. It is contended that the petitioner did

not display his bona fides in resolving the dispute in any manner in

mediation during the pendency of this petition, whereas the complainant

specifically expressed her desire to resolve the matter. It is further claimed

that even educational certificates of the complainant have not been returned.

Therefore, it is prayed that this petition be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is not in dispute that concerted efforts were made for an

amicable resolution of the dispute between the parties but the same could

not fructify. It is candidly admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

first petition under Section 9 of the Act was withdrawn by the petitioner

after it was transferred to Ludhiana. Another petition under Section 9 of the

Act has thereafter been submitted though it is sought to be explained that

first petition was withdrawn as there was assurance by the complainant that

she would join the matrimonial home. Even as on date the petitioner seeks

resumption of matrimonial ties and he does not wish to part ways with the

complainant. The complainant, however, submits that in view of the

unsavoury atmosphere created by the petitioner, it is not possible to resume

matrimonial ties. The matter had been adjourned to enable learned counsel

for the petitioner to seek instructions whether the petitioner is ready and

willing to deposit a sum of `1,00,000/- though without

any prejudice to his rights. Learned counsel for the

2 of 3
22-05-2018 00:09:45 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 14077 of 2017 (OM) -3-

petitioner submits that he has instructions to state that the petitioner at this

stage is not in a position to deposit any amount.

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. Consequently, order dated 15.05.2017

is made absolute subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of `75,000/- with

the learned trial Court within three weeks from today. Needless to say the

said deposit shall be without any prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.

It is reiterated that none of the observations made herein above

are a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the


(Lisa Gill)
May 17, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
22-05-2018 00:09:45 :::

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