SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sube Singh vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 2018

CRM-M-15266-2017 1


Decided on: 09.02.2018

Sube Singh …. Petitioner

State of Haryana ….. Respondent


Present: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. R.K. Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate,
for the complainant.

The petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR

No.56 dated 31.03.2017 under Sections 498-A, 376-B 506 IPC

(Section 377 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Bilaspur,

District Yamuna Nagar.

It is submitted that marriage between the petitioner and the

complainant was solemnized on 12.11.2008. It was the second marriage of

both the parties. The petitioner’s first wife had passed away and he has two

children from the first marriage. The complainant had sought divorce from

her first husband after one year of marriage and thereafter solemnized

marriage with the petitioner.

It is further submitted that one of the grievances raised by the

complainant in the FIR is that their marriage was not registered by the

petitioner. The petitioner even as on date is ready and willing to have the

marriage registered and has always treated the complainant as his wife and

has afforded due respect and regard to her. The petitioner never raised any

1 of 2
04-03-2018 10:25:27 :::
CRM-M-15266-2017 2

such protest since their marriage in the year 2008 till the submission of her

application dated 26.09.2016 on the basis of which the above said FIR was

registered. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed.

The petitioner and the complainant duly identified by their

counsel are present in Court. The matter was placed before the Mediation

and Conciliation Centre of this Court, but mediation was unsuccessful. It is

stated that even as on date, the petitioner is ready and willing to resume

matrimonial ties with the complainant. However, the complainant has

refused to resume matrimonial ties due to the unsavoury atmosphere created

by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jagjit

Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and is not

involved in any other criminal case. There are no allegation on behalf of the

State that he is likely to abscond. No useful purpose shall be served by

taking the petitioner in custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is considered

just and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated

03.05.2017 is made absolute.

None of the observations made here-in-above shall be

construed to be a reflection on merits of the case and shall have no bearing

on trial.

Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
04-03-2018 10:25:29 :::

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