SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Robin And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 27 May, 2019


CRM-M No.20302 of 2019
Date of decision: 27th May, 2019

Robin another
… Petitioners
State of Haryana another
… Respondents


Present: Mr. Vishal Nehra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Baljinder S. Virk, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana
for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Tushar Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.2.


Allegations against the petitioners Robin and Aman in this

first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case

bearing FIR No.288 dated 02.11.2018 under Sections 406, Section498-A, Section506

IPC pertaining to Police Station Paro Ambala Cantt., District Ambala,

have been levelled by complainant Deepika wife of Robin. In her

allegations the wife alleges that her marriage was solemnized on

17.12.2017 and after some time of the marriage the accused including the

petitioner started having quarrel with her and on occasions had beaten her

as well as strangulated her and demanded cash worth Rs.10.00 lacs and a

Honda City car. The wife further alleged that the husband was in an

1 of 3
23-06-2019 18:39:21 :::
CRM-M No.20302 of 2019 2

amorous relation with another lady, leading to registration of the present


Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vishal Nehra,

Advocate inter alia contends that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that

prima facie there is no allegation of Section 406 IPC and thus, no case for

any custodial interrogation is made out.

Learned State counsel Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Deputy

Advocate General, Haryana on instructions from HC Rakesh Kumar

assisted by learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Tushar Gautam,

Advocate has sought to stoutly oppose the grant of bail on the grounds of

being a pure matrimonial dispute and that there is specific allegation by

the complainant that the accused have retained her dowry articles and

jewellery, therefore the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

Appreciating the submissions of the two sides, a close look at

the allegations contained in the FIR (Annexure P1) do not spell out any

specific entrustment of the articles of Istridhan much less any criminal

breach of trust by any of the petitioners qua them. In view thereof this

Court is of the opinion that mere joining the investigations by the

petitioners would suffice the purpose. Accordingly, the petitioners are

directed to join the investigations within a period of ten days from today.

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

2 of 3
23-06-2019 18:39:22 :::
CRM-M No.20302 of 2019 3

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


The petition stands disposed off accordingly.

May 27, 2019
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
23-06-2019 18:39:22 :::

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