SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Lalit Goyal vs State & Anr on 18 December, 2017

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4496 / 2017
Lalit Goyal S/o Sh. Bajrang Lal, B/c Agarwal, R/o Elnabad, District
Sirsa (Haryana)
1. State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Neeru W/o Lalit Goyal D/o Sh. Madanlal Jindal, B/c
Agarwal, R/o 304-A, Agrasen Nagar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pradeep Shah.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.MS Panwar, PP Mr.Jitendra Ojha.
Judgment / Order


By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the

petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 7.12.2017 passed by

learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar whereby, the application

filed by the respondent no.2 smt. Neeru under Section 439(2)

Cr.P.C. was allowed and the regular bail granted to the petitioner

by order dated 15.9.2017 by the learned Sessions Judge was


Learned counsel Shri Shah submits that the petitioner was

arrested in connection with FIR No.94/2017 on 13.9.2017. His bail

application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. In the

proceedings of bail before the learned Sessions Judge, an

agreement was arrived at between the parties that the petitioner
(2 of 3)

would keep the complainant with him. However, the agreement

fell out later on. He urges that the learned Sessions Judge had

granted regular bail to the petitioner and thus, there was no

occasion for him to cancel the same implored the Court to set

aside the impugned order.

Per contra, learned counsel Shri Ojha urges that the

petitioner misled the Sessions Court by making a false statement

that he would be keeping the complainant with himself and

thereby fraudulently procured the bail order. However, the

petitioner did not abide by his promise and never took the

complainant to the matrimonial home.

In reply to this contention, learned counsel Shri Shah urges

that after being released from custody, the petitioner took the

complainant with himself to his home. However, the complainant’s

relatives came at the petitioner’s house and tried to assault him

and thereafter, the complainant was taken back by her father. He

further submits that proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C.

were initiated against Madanlal, Smt.Neeru and Pramod in the

Court of A.D.M., Sri Ganganagar on 11.10.2017. He thus opposes

the submission advanced by Shri Ojha that the petitioner

breached the conditions of bail and craves acceptance of the

instant misc. petition.

Having heard the arguments advanced at Bar and having

considered the entirety of facts and circumstances as emerging

from record, it is apparent that the petitioner indeed took

complainant to the matrimonial home after he was released on

bail. However, the things did not move happily and some disputes
(3 of 3)

arose between the spouses whereafter, the complainant left the

matrimonial home. Proceedings under Section 107/116(3) Cr.P.C.

were launched by the petitioner against the complainant others

in relation to this set of events. Thus, by no stretch of imagination

can this Court be convinced that the petitioner breached the offer

made on his behalf during the course of proceedings of bail

application which was allowed on 15.9.2017. In this background,

the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in cancelling the

regular bail granted to the petitioner for the offences under

Sections 498A and 406 IPC which carry a maximum sentence of 3


In view of the above discussion, the instant misc. petition

deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order dated

7.12.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar

whereby, the application filed by the respondent no.2 smt. Neeru

under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. was allowed and the bail granted to

the petitioner was cancelled is quashed and set aside and the

order dated 15.9.2017 is restored.

Stay petition also stands disposed of.



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