SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 February, 2018


Criminal Misc. No. M- 15694 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : February 28, 2018

Sukhdev Singh …..Petitioner


State of Punjab and another ….Respondents


Present: Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.


The petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the complainant,

seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0029 dated

12.03.2017 under Sections 498A, 354A, 120B IPC registered at Police

Station Lehra, District Sangrur.

As per the allegations in the FIR, marriage of the

complainant was solemnised with the petitioner’s son on 15.09.2016. It

is stated that the complainant’s husband was mentally retarded. This

fact was in the knowledge of the complainant but she solemnised

marriage keeping in view the future of the son from her first marriage.

Allegations attracting rigours of Section 354A IPC have been levelled

against the present petitioner.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely

implicated, in this case, merely due to his relationship with the

complainant. In fact, the complainant and her grand mother wanted

1 of 2
04-03-2018 11:42:11 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 15694 of 2017 (OM) -2-

that some of the property of the petitioner be transferred in their favour.

It is further submitted that final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., in

this case, has since been presented. The petitioner undertakes to face

the proceedings. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.

It is noticed that this matter was placed before the

Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court but mediation between

the parties had failed.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

Harbans Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation.

Final report, in this case, has been presented. The matter is fixed before

the learned trial Court for recording of prosecution evidence. Learned

counsel for the State verifies that the petitioner 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 11.05.2017 is made absolute.

(Lisa Gill)
February 28, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
04-03-2018 11:42:12 :::

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