SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mandeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 6 December, 2017

CRM No.M-2253 of 2017
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M- 2253 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: December 6 , 2017.

Mandeep Singh …… PETITIONER (s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another …… RESPONDENT (s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjay K.Saini, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.
*****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
*****

LISA GILL, J.

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

petitioner in FIR No.22 dated 21.04.2016 under Sections 498A/494/323/324/

406/120B/506 IPC, registered at Police Station Women, District Panchkula.

It is submitted that marriage between the petitioner and the

complainant was solemnized on 07.04.2000. There is one daughter born out of

this wedlock. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the

complainant was ever ill-treated on account of dowry or otherwise during the

1 of 3
10-12-2017 09:56:32 :::
CRM No.M-2253 of 2017
-2-

sixteen years of their marriage. The petitioner has repeatedly expressed his

desire for resumption of matrimonial ties with the complainant, especially

keeping in view the interest of their minor daughter. However, the complainant

is not coming forward. It is further submitted that the petitioner had offered to

transfer two acres of his own land in favour of his minor daughter as well,

however, the complainant is not coming forward. Moreover, the petitioner has

joined investigation pursuant to order dated 27.03.2017. He undertakes to face

proceedings and not misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if confirmed.

Therefore, it is prayed that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the complainant is unable to deny that effort

was made for mediation between the parties however, the same failed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It was submitted on behalf of the complainant before this Court on

15.09.2017 that the petitioner is not displaying his bonafides and has refused to

allow the complainant and their daughter to accompany him in the matrimonial

home. Matter was adjourned to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to seek

instructions. The petitioner on 20.09.2017 submitted before this Court that he is

ready and willing to resume matrimonial ties with the complainant, his wife. He

also offered to transfer two acres of land in favour of their minor daughter. This

is so recorded in order dated 20.09.2017. However, the complainant/respondent

No.2 did not come present before this Court on the ground that her father was

hospitalized. Matter was adjourned for today on request of her counsel. Today

again, respondent No.2 has not come present neither does her counsel have any

instructions in respect to the offer made by the petitioner.

2 of 3
10-12-2017 09:56:34 :::
CRM No.M-2253 of 2017
-3-

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jai Parkash,

verifies that the petitioner has indeed joined investigation. It is further informed

that final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has since been presented. The

petitioner, it is verified, is not involved in any other criminal case.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner is

likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing

true facts before the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without

commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits thereof, this petition

is allowed. Consequently, order dated 27.03.2017 is made absolute.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall

be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

( LISA GILL )
December 6 , 2017. JUDGE
‘om’

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
10-12-2017 09:56:34 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh