SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Harkirat Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 January, 2019

CRM-M-1444-2019 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

213 CRM-M-1444-2019
Date of Decision:23.01.2019

Harkirat Singh …..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab …..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.

Present: Mr. Prem Singh Bhangu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, D.A.G., Punjab.

****

HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for

grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.189 dated 06.11.2018

under Section 354 IPC, registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib.

As per FIR, petitioner allegedly called the complainant on

Sunday to Gurudwara Jyoti Sarup, Fatehgarh Sahib and made her to sit in

his car. Thereafter, he took her to a plot at village Daun and kissed her. She

did not like this action of the petitioner and pushed him and ran away from

there to save herself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is total

ambiguity in the FIR as regards date and time of the incident. The

complainant has given Sunday as the day of incident and there is no number

or description of the vehicle and the place, where the offence was allegedly

committed.

1 of 2
10-02-2019 18:10:48 :::
CRM-M-1444-2019 2

Learned State Counsel on instructions from ASI Avtar Singh

states that the complainant has made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,

wherein she stated that, she submitted a complaint to the Principal of the

Institute, where the petitioner is working on 04.11.2018 itself. He further

states that the day of incident (Sunday), the date i.e. 04.11.2018 and even

the make of car i.e. I-20 have been given in the statement under Section 161

Cr.P.C. Moreover, during the course of investigation, offence punishable

under Section 342 IPC has also been added in the case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is a teacher in the same Institute, in which the

complainant is a student and therefore, considering the nature of allegations,

this Court does not find any merit in the case to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner.

Dismissed.

January 23, 2019 (HARI PAL VERMA)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

2 of 2
10-02-2019 18:10:48 :::

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Your email address will not be published.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