SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nirpesh Mittal vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2017

203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. M- No. 32625 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : March 20, 2017

Nirpesh Mittal …..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ….Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Additional AG, Punjab.

***
LISA GILL, J.

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

petitioner in FIR No. 106 dated 31.07.2016 registered under Sections

306, 34 IPC at Police Station Doraha, District Ludhiana.

It is submitted that the deceased, in this case, was living with

her parents since June 2009. Litigation was admittedly pending between the

petitioner and his wife. A petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 (for short – ‘the Act’) was filed by the petitioner and a petition

under Section 13 of the Act was filed by the deceased. A petition under

Section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act for the custody of the minor was

filed by the petitioner in March, 2016. Furthermore, no allegations were

raised against the petitioner at the outset but the present FIR was registered

after a delay of 08 days. The petitioner, it is submitted, has joined

investigation pursuant to order dated 16.09.2016. No recovery is to be

effected from him. Thus, it is prayed that this petition be allowed.

1 of 2
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2017 18:10:01 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 32625 of 2016 (OM) -2-

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

Barjinder Singh, Police Station Doraha affirms and verifies that the

petitioner has indeed joined investigation. No recovery is to be effected

from the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is not required.

The factual position regarding litigation between the parties as

well as the deceased living separately from the petitioner since June 2009 is

not in dispute. 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 in the Court, if released on bail.

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. Consequently, order dated 16.09.2016

is made absolute.



                                                         (Lisa Gill)
March 20, 2017                                              Judge
rts
           Whether speaking/reasoned :                Yes

            Whether reportable                  :     Yes/No




                                       2 of 2
                    ::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2017 18:10:02 :::
 

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