SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sushant Nanda vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 27 February, 2018

CRM No.M-35988 of 2016


Criminal Misc. No.M- 35988 of 2016(OM)
Date of Decision: February 27 , 2018.

Sushant Nanda …… PETITIONER (s)


State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. H.S.Randhawa, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?


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

petitioner in FIR No.194 dated 05.09.2016 under Sections 406/498A IPC,

registered at Police Station Shahkot, Jalandhar.

As per the allegations in the FIR, marriage between the petitioner

and the complainant/respondent No.2 was solemnized on 05.05.2007. Adequate

dowry was given to the petitioner and his family members. Allegations of ill-

treatment and harassment at their hands is alleged. Three children were born out

1 of 3
04-03-2018 06:46:40 :::
CRM No.M-35988 of 2016

of this wedlock. It is mentioned that a compromise was effected on 07.07.2014

(Annexure P5), but the petitioners backed out of the same. The present FIR was

registered on 05.09.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the present FIR has

been registered due to temperamental differences between the petitioner and

respondent No.2. Terms and conditions of the compromise (Annexure P5) were

carried out regarding the separate house in which the petitioner and respondent

No.2 were to reside together alongwith their minor children. Even during the

pendency of this petition, it was offered by the petitioner’s father that the said

house constructed over 8 marlas of land would be transferred in favour of the

petitioner and his wife, the complainant/respondent No.2. The keys of the said

house were handed over to respondent No.2 on 01.05.2017 before this Court.

However, respondent No.2 expressed her reservations regarding resumption of

matrimonial ties. It is submitted that the petitioner in order to show his

bonafides has executed three FDRs to the tune of `2,00,000/- each in favour of

three minor children without prejudice to his rights with a rider that they may

not be encashed till the children attain majority. It is submitted that the petitioner

has joined investigation and he undertakes to face the proceedings and not

misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if afforded to him. Therefore, it is

prayed that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not raised any serious

objection. The keys of the house mentioned above have been handed back by

respondent No.2 to the petitioner in Court today. Petitioner and respondent

No.2 are duly identified by their counsel. Three original FDRs i.e., of

2 of 3
04-03-2018 06:46:42 :::
CRM No.M-35988 of 2016

`2,00,000/- each in favour of the minor children as noted above have been

handed over to respondent No.2.

Photocopies of the said FDRs are taken on record subject to just

exceptions. Needless to say, the said FDRs stand deposited by the petitioner

without prejudice to his rights.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Avtar Singh,

verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and 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 before the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without

commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this

petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 17.10.2016 is made absolute.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall

be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

February 27 , 2018. JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
04-03-2018 06:46:42 :::

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