SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mandeep Singh vs Punjab And Haryana High Court … on 26 March, 2019


CRM-M No.8880 of 2019
Date of decision: 26th March, 2019

Mandeep Singh
… Petitioner
Punjab and Haryana High Court another
… Respondents

Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Vij, Addl. Public Prosecutor, UT Chandigarh
for the respondents.


This order shall dispose off second regular bail application

filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by accused petitioner Mandeep Singh in

case bearing Complaint No.93 Reg (Vig.) dated 18.09.2018 under

Sections 193, 199, 209, 406, 494, 120-B IPC pending before the Court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh as case No.1367/2018

dated 19.09.2018 titled as ‘Punjab Haryana High Court vs. Mandeep

Singh and another’.

The facts are that the present complaint was got lodged on the

directions of this Court contained in order dated 18.08.2018 by the

Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court. A petition bearing CRM-M No.41239

of 2018 (OM) titled ‘Manisha Wagle and another vs. State of Punjab

and others’ was filed in this case seeking protection of life and liberty of

the petitioners wherein it was claimed that both the petitioners were

major and had undergone marriage against the wishes of family on

1 of 3
14-04-2019 05:39:16 :::
CRM-M No.8880 of 2019 2

15.09.2018. It is at the hearing, one Manjeet Kaur appeared before this

Court and made statement and filed her affidavit along with photographs

that in fact she was the legally wedded wife of present accused petitioner

Mandeep Singh and which marriage was still subsisting out of which a

child has been born and that is how the proceedings under Section 340

Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be initiated after

due inquiry. The petitioner was charged with offences punishable under

Sections 193, 199, 209, 406, 494 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and

was taken into custody on 18.09.2018.

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner inter alia

contends that the petitioner is behind bars since more than six months and

has sought to place reliance on cross-examination whereby Manjeet

Kaur, the first wife, had accepted the fact that the husband accused

petitioner has not taken any jewellery article from the house and

therefore, offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out claiming that

the remaining offences are bailable and thus, prayed for grant of bail

submitting that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

The bail application is opposed by Mr.Rajiv Vij, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, UT Chandigarh on the grounds that the

petitioner has knowingly and intentionally made a false declaration

before this Court about his marital status and in doing so has acted

dishonestly and cheated the first wife and is guilty of commission of a

serious offence of bigamy. It is further contended that if allowed bail, the

petitioner might influence the witnesses and threaten them and therefore

stifle the trial of the case.

2 of 3
14-04-2019 05:39:16 :::
CRM-M No.8880 of 2019 3

Appreciating the submissions, as has been observed the

accused petitioner fully aware that he was already married and having a

child had acceptably undergone another marriage with Manisha Wagle.

To facilitate the same by filing a protection petition in the Court had

knowingly and intentionally filed a false affidavit of averments and thus,

undermining the judicial sanctity. Such like instances have attained

notoriety. People misuse such a process for attaining a sinister design,

and therefore, is having an adverse impact on the dispensation of justice.

The argument that by virtue of Section 198 Cr.P.C. for commission of

offence under Section 494 IPC only a complaint lies by the aggrieved

person, are matters of trial. Without feeling necessity to further advert on

to the merits, else it might prejudice the case of the parties, such like

practices need to be dealt with a heavy hand as dubious persons are

carrying on such activities fleecing such runaway couples and having

total disregard towards the law of the land. Therefore, the Courts being

tools of social justice, such practices need to be put an end to. The

apprehension of the State that if allowed bail the petitioner might

influence the witnesses is not unfounded. Finding no merit, the petition

stands dismissed.

March 26, 2019
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
14-04-2019 05:39:16 :::

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