SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramesh Lal Bagga vs State Of Punjab on 1 March, 2018

CRM No.M-26003 of 2017
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M- 26003 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: March 01 , 2018.

Ramesh Lal Bagga …… PETITIONER (s)

Versus

State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Jasdeep Singh Gharuan, 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.50 dated 21.05.2017 under Section 498A IPC, registered at

Police Station Nurpur Bedi, District Rupnagar.

It is submitted that marriage between the petitioner and the

complainant was solemnized on 22.06.2014. The petitioner left for Abu Dhabi

in connection with his work on 02.11.2014. He returned to India in June, 2016.

As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant did not face any problem till

1 of 3
11-03-2018 08:10:05 :::
CRM No.M-26003 of 2017
-2-

her husband left for Abu Dhabi. However, she was subjected to ill-treatment

and harassment at the hands of other members of the in-laws family. Proper care

and affection was not afforded to the complainant even when it was

discovered that she was pregnant. On the contrary, she was subjected to ill-

treatment and abuse. A child was born out of this wedlock on 05.07.2015. She

was taken to her parental home in March, 2016. A compromise was arrived at

between the parties on 06.07.2016 after the petitioner had returned to India. The

complainant returned to her matrimonial home but the petitioner allegedly raised

a demand of `5,00,000/-. The complainant was thereafter constrained to live in

her parental home.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that problems

arose only after he left India in November, 2014. All allegations of ill-treatment

and harassment are denied. The petitioner has specifically offered for

resumption of matrimonial ties with his wife, the complainant, especially

keeping in view the future of their minor child. He has also agreed to hand over

a settled amount every month to respondent No.2 to meet her personal expenses.

However, respondent No.2 has refused to resume cohabitation. The petitioner, it

is submitted, has joined investigation and he undertakes to face the proceedings

and not misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if afforded to him.

Therefore, it is prayed that this petition be allowed.

Respondent No.2, duly identified by her counsel, is present in Court

today. Respondent No.2 states that she is not ready and willing to re-join the

petitioner in the matrimonial home under any conditions as she was subjected to

ill-treatment and harassment in the in-laws family.

2 of 3
11-03-2018 08:10:06 :::
CRM No.M-26003 of 2017
-3-

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Mahinder

Kumar, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and is not involved in

any other criminal case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

It is noticed that the petitioner is not being proceeded against under

Section 406 IPC. 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 as above but without

commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this

petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 08.08.2017 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 )
March 01 , 2018. JUDGE
‘om’

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

3 of 3
11-03-2018 08:10:06 :::

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