SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mamta vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 5 April, 2017

CRM-M-11194-2016 -1-


Date of Decision:- -05.04.2017



State of Punjab and others


Present: Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Ms. Anmol Grewal, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Nitin Narula, Advocate
for Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate
for respondent No.4.



Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439(2) for

cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.4, vide order

dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Fazilka, in case FIR No.9 dated 06.02.2016, registered under Section

498-A IPC (Section 406 IPC added later on), at Police Station City-2,

Abohar, District Fazilka.

Learned State counsel has informed that the after presentation

of the challan, the charge has been framed and the trial is fixed for

prosecution evidence.

1 of 2
09-04-2017 15:19:21 :::
CRM-M-11194-2016 -2-

As is evident from the order dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure P-2)

that the bail was granted to respondent No.4 keeping in view the fact that

respondent No.4 (husband) had filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction

directing the petitioner-complainant to take back her dowry articles and the

FIR was registered under Section 498-A IPC and offence under Section 406

IPC has been added after the filing the bail application.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through

the record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground for

cancellation of bail is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not

point out any patent illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order. Such

articulated order, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside in the

garb of petition for cancellation of bail, unless and until the same is totally

illegal and without jurisdiction.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore,

the instant petition for cancellation of bail is hereby dismissed as such.

April 05, 2017 ( RITU BAHRI )
naresh.k JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No

2 of 2
09-04-2017 15:19:22 :::

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Your email address will not be published.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