206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. M- No. 16806 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : July 03, 2017
Surinder Singh and another …..Petitioners
State of Punjab ….Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Tushant Deep Garg, Advocate
for the complainant.
LISA GILL, J.
The petitioners, who are the parents-in-law of the complainant,
pray for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 19 dated 20.04.2017
registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC at Police Station Women Cell,
It is submitted that both the petitioners are living separately
from the complainant and her husband i.e. the son of the petitioners. It is
further contended that they are roped in only because of their relationship
with the complainant. The allegations in the FIR against them are absolutely
vague, general and incorrect. The complainant in fact tried to forcibly enter
into the house of the petitioners on 02.03.2017. In the ensuing scuffle,
injuries were received by petitioner No. 2 and Smt. Balwant Kaur i.e. the
mother and mother-in-law of petitioner No. 1 and 2 respectively. The
complainant also received four simple injuries in this occurrence.
The petitioners’ son has been afforded the concession of regular bail.
1 of 2
08-07-2017 21:13:42 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 16806 of 2017 (OM) -2-
Furthermore, the petitioners have joined investigation pursuant to interim
order dated 11.05.2017. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jagdev
Singh, Police Station Women Cell, Bathinda, affirms that the petitioners
were living separately from the complainant and her husband. The
petitioners are verified to have joined investigation, however, recovery of
certain gold articles, it is submitted, is yet to be effected. The same is
seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits
that as the complainant and her husband were living separately all articles
were with them and have been recovered.
Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed this
petition. However, it is not denied that a petition under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed by the petitioners’ son and the
same is pending.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the
petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are 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.
July 03, 2017 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
08-07-2017 21:13:43 :::