201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M- 40776 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : January 30, 2018

Jatinder Singh and others …..Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ….Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Duggal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
***
LISA GILL, J.

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

petitioners in Complaint No. 37 of 2015 dated 15.12.2015 under Sections

406/498A IPC.

It is submitted that the complaint in question has been filed due

to temperamental differences between petitioner No. 1 and his wife –

respondent No. 2. Moreover, the petitioners could not appear before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on 05.10.2016 due to noting

of a wrong date by the counsel. Due to this reason, their application for bail

was dismissed on 05.10.2016. The petitioners undertake to face the

proceedings and appear before the learned trial Court on each and every

date fixed. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition

while stating that serious allegations are levelled against all the petitioners.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner No. 1 is the husband. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 the

parents-in-law and petitioner No. 4 is the brother-in-law of respondent No.

1 of 2
04-02-2018 16:03:47 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 40776 of 2016 (OM) -2-

2. It is not in dispute that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and

respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 09.03.2014. It is stated that she was

subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by all the petitioners due to

insufficient dowry. She was ultimately thrown out of matrimonial home on

13.08.2014. Despite efforts, she could not be rehabilitated in the

matrimonial home. Parties were referred to the Mediation and Conciliation

Centre of this Court but mediation was not successful. Ultimately,

respondent No. 2 expressed her willingness to part ways with petitioner

No. 1 in case he would deposit a sum of `7,66,000/- as full and final

settlement of all the claims – past, present and future in respect to alimony,

maintenance etc. Despite opportunity, no reasonable proposal came forth

from petitioner No. 1.

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 in respect to petitioners No. 2 to 4.

Consequently, bail afforded to petitioners No. 2 to 4 by the learned trial

Court pursuant to order dated 16.11.2016 be made absolute subject to their

furnishing fresh bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Court.

However, keeping in view the nature of allegations and the

conduct of petitioner No. 1, this petition is dismissed qua petitioner No. 1.

(Lisa Gill)
January 30, 2018 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
04-02-2018 16:03:48 :::