SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vijay Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 6 November, 2017

CRM-M-25838 of 2017(OM) 1


CRM-M-25838 of 2017(OM)
Date of decision : 06.11.2017
Vijay Kumar
…… Petitioner
State of Punjab
…….. Respondent
Present: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr.Rahul Rathore, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Piyush Bansal, Advocate
for the complainant.



Petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR

No.66 dated 28.04.2017, under Section 354 IPC (Section 354-A IPC

added lateron), registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Police

Commissioner Ludhiana.

Petitioner is the stepfather of the complainant. It is submitted

that litigation is pending between the petitioner and his wife i.e. the

complainant’s mother. A civil suit suit was filed by the petitioner’s father-

in-law and sister-in-law prior to the registration of this case. A complaint

filed in respect to the incident in question, which is alleged to have taken

place on 04.10.2016 was investigated by the Incharge Women Cell,

Ludhiana and the matter was filed. The present FIR was thereafter

registered pursuant to a subsequent inquiry conducted by the Assistant

1 of 2
09-11-2017 03:47:41 :::
CRM-M-25838 of 2017(OM) 2

Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. It is submitted that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in this case due to pending litigation between the

petitioner and the complainant’s mother/her family. Moreover, the

petitioner, who is not involved in any other criminal case has since joined

investigation pursuant to order dated 10.08.2017. Therefore, it is prayed

that this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

Jitender Singh, verifies the pendency of litigation between the petitioner

and his wife i.e. the complainant’s mother/her family as mentioned above.

It is further verified that the petitioner has joined investigation pursuant

to order dated 10.08.2017. He is not reported to be 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 as above, but

without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, this petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 10.08.2017, is

made absolute.

06.11.2017 (LISA GILL)
s.khan JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable:Yes/No

2 of 2
09-11-2017 03:47:42 :::

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