218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M- 17146 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : September 28, 2017
Rajiv Kumar …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ….Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay K. Saini, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
LISA GILL, J.
The petitioner prays for bail pending trial in FIR No. 42 dated
18.01.2017 under Sections 498A, 304B, 34 IPC registered at Police Station
Civil Lines, Karnal, District Karnal.
It is contended that the petitioner is the Senior Branch Manager
in OBC Bank. It was the first marriage of the petitioner and the second
marriage of the deceased. Both of them were residing happily after their
marriage. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case because the
brothers of the deceased were not treating the deceased in a proper manner.
It is submitted that at the time of divorce granted to the deceased in regard
to her first marriage she received a sum of `14 lakhs as permanent alimony.
The said amount was withdrawn in the year 2008 itself. The said amount
was not used for the benefit of the deceased but for meeting the marriage
expenses of one of her brothers. Moreover, the allegations in the FIR are
patently incorrect. The FDR of `5 lakhs mentioned therein is of the year
1 of 3
30-09-2017 09:11:39 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 17146 of 2017 (OM) -2-
2014 i.e. much prior to the marriage which was solemnised on 04.12.2016.
The nominee in the FDR is the father of the deceased, who is still alive.
Therefore, the petitioner was admittedly not the beneficiary of the said FDR.
It is further pointed out that affidavit dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure P-3) was
executed by the deceased stating that she has no objection in case her share
in the property in question is transferred in the name of her brother – Rajesh
Kumar. She also submitted before the authorities that she had no objection
to the transfer of another property in the name of her other brother i.e. the
complainant. Share of the deceased has been duly transferred in favour of
her brothers. It is due to her anguish and her relationship with her brothers
that the step in question was taken by her. Moreover, the complainant, in
this case, has since deposed before the learned trial Court. It is, thus,
prayed that this petition be allowed.
Photocopy of the statement of the complainant (PW1) produced
in Court today is taken on record subject to just exceptions.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Transfer of the share of the deceased in the property as
aforementioned in favour of her brothers is not in dispute. The FDR of
`5 lakhs as mentioned above, with the father of the deceased being the
nominee is also not in question. The complainant has since testified before
the learned trial Court.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that 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. Trial in this case is not
likely to conclude in the near future.
2 of 3
30-09-2017 09:11:40 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 17146 of 2017 (OM) -3-
No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner
incarcerated any longer. 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, the petitioner be released on bail pending trial
subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court.
It is reiterated that none of the observations made herein above
are a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the
trial.
(Lisa Gill)
September 28, 2017 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
30-09-2017 09:11:40 :::