SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sarabjit Singh vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Ors on 6 April, 2018


Criminal Misc. No. M- 20200 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : April 06, 2018

Sarabjit Singh …..Petitioner

U.T. Administration and others ….Respondents


Present: Mr. Viney Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ashima Mor, APP, UT, Chandigarh.

Mr. D.S. Nigha, Advocate
for Smt. Kuldeep Kaur – mother of the complainant.


Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in FIR No. 43 dated 04.05.2016 under Section 406/498A IPC

registered at Police Station Women, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

It is submitted that the FIR in question was registered due to

temperamental differences and the fact that the petitioner suffered a heart

attack at the age of 35. The complainant left the petitioner’s company out of

her own accord and refused to cohabit with the petitioner. The present FIR

was registered.

It is further submitted that the complainant unfortunately

passed away on 09.02.2017. The parties had earlier been referred to the

Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court in October, 2016. The

matter has now been compromised by the petitioner with his mother-in-law

i.e. the mother of the complainant. Demand draft dated 05.04.2018 for a sum

of `2 lakhs in favour of Kuldeep Kaur wife of Manjit Singh i.e. the

petitioner’s mother-in-law has been handed over to Kuldeep Kaur, who is

present in Court, duly identified by her counsel. The petitioner undertakes

1 of 2
10-04-2018 07:48:07 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 20200 of 2016 (OM) -2-

to hand over rest of the settled amount of `3,50,000/- to Kuldeep Kaur on or

before 10.10.2018.

Learned counsel for Kuldeep Kaur – mother of the complainant

(since deceased) submits that his client has no objection, in case, this

petition is allowed subject to the petitioner strictly adhering to the terms and

conditions of the settlement.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Ram

Kumar, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation. He is not

involved in any other criminal case.

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 in the Court, if released on bail.

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, order dated 03.06.2016

is made absolute.

(Lisa Gill)
April 06, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
10-04-2018 07:48:08 :::

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