SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pishora Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 27 May, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.14266 of 2019 (OM)
Date of decision: 27th May, 2019

Pishora Singh another
… Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
… Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH

Present: Mr. V.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Sandhu, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent/State.
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the complainant.

FATEH DEEP SINGH, J. (ORAL)

This order shall dispose off anticipatory bail application

moved in FIR No.201 dated 27.12.2018 under Sections 498-A, Section406,

Section354/Section34 IPC pertaining to Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn

Taran. The brief allegations against the petitioners namely, Pishora Singh

father-in-law and Gurbhej Singh elder brother of Randhir Singh husband

of the complainant, are that the marriage between the complainant and

the principal accused non-applicant was solemnized on 27.04.2009 where

sufficient articles of dowry were given. However, the accused side was

not happy with the same and has been physically and mentally torturing

the complainant and ultimately on 31.12.2017 she was thrown out of her

1 of 3
09-06-2019 13:03:39 :::
CRM-M No.14266 of 2019 (OM) 2

matrimonial home, leading to registration of the present case on

27.12.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. V.P. Singh, Advocate

inter alia contends that the allegations of usurping of the stridhana have

come about after more than nine years, and has sought to assail the

applicability of Section 406 IPC being barred by limitation. It is further

contended that in pursuance of separation being executed between the

parties as per Annexure P4, the complainant and her husband are

separated from the rest of the family, thus, no case of demand of dowry

as well as cruelty by the present petitioners, father-in-law and brother-in-

law, is made out.

Learned State counsel Mr. A.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate

General, Punjab on instructions from ASI Gurdev Singh, Police Station

Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran assisted by learned counsel for the

complainant Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate has stoutly opposed the

grant of relief on the grounds that custodial interrogation of the

petitioners is very much essential together with the allegations under

Section 354 IPC levelled against the petitioner No.2, necessitates

dismissal of the petition.

Going through the submissions of the two sides, co-accused

non-applicant Amandeep Kaur was allowed anticipatory bail by this

Court vide orders dated 13.03.2019 (Annexure P7) where heavy reliance

was placed on their family settlement (Annexure P3). Furthermore, the

2 of 3
09-06-2019 13:03:39 :::
CRM-M No.14266 of 2019 (OM) 3

inordinate delay between the giving of the dowry articles and registration

of the case which has come about after more than nine years, a debatable

issue arises over the very applicability of Section 406 IPC. More so, since

the very contents of the family settlement (Annexure P3) are not

displaced by the prosecution side, therefore applicability of Sections 354

as well as 498A SectionIPC too becomes highly debatable which would be

adjudicated after the parties adduce their evidence. Mere joining the

investigations by the petitioners would suffice the purpose and in view

thereof, they are directed to join the investigations within a period of ten

days from today and on their doing so, they shall be released on bail to

the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer till submission of report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan). They shall however continue to join

investigation and shall furnish an undertaking that they shall abide by the

conditions specified under Section 438 (2) SectionCr.P.C. Thereafter, the

petitioners will be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the

satisfaction of the trial Court.

The petition stands disposed off accordingly.

(FATEH DEEP SINGH)
JUDGE
May 27, 2019
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
09-06-2019 13:03:39 :::

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