SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajiv Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 28 September, 2017


Criminal Misc. No.M- 17146 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : September 28, 2017

Rajiv Kumar …..Petitioner

State of Haryana ….Respondent


Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjay K. Saini, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate
for the complainant.


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The said amount was withdrawn in the year 2008 itself.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


(Lisa Gill)
September 28, 2017 Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
30-09-2017 09:11:40 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments


Copyright © 2024 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