Judgment:
CRM-M No.32807 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-32807 of 2013 Date of decision :
30. 06.2014 Manpreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajpreet Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the complainant. **** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) Petitioner-Manpreet Singh son of Amar Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.153 dated 30.07.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Matour, District Mohali.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the Sumit Kumar 2014.06.30 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.32807 of 2013 -2- entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Rekha Mittal J.) passed the following order on September 30, 2013:- “Manpreet Singh, husband of complainant Gursimran Kaur, prays for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in FIR No.153 dated 30.7.2013 for offence under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station, Matour, District Mohali. Counsel for the petitioner would urge that prior to lodging of the instant FIR, the petitioner submitted an application to express her grievance against the alleged misconduct of her husband and his family members. In those proceedings, the statement of the complainant was recorded on 13.1.2011 wherein she has admitted the fact that the marriage was a love marriage and there was no exchange of articles from both the families. She expressed her grievance against her husband that he had raised demand of car and pressurized her to join some job if she is unable to bring money for the car from her father. The complainant got an ex parte decree of divorce on 25.10.2012 from the Court at Mohali and thereafter lodged the present FIR as a measure of vengeance and exploitation. The petitioner is ready to join investigation and co-operate throughout. Notice of motion 3.12.2013.. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within seven days and on his appearance before the arresting/investigating officer, he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned officer subject to the following conditions:- i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted Sumit Kumar 2014.06.30 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.32807 of 2013 -3- with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.”. 5. At the very outset, on instructions from HC Gurmeet Singh, learned State counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. Moreover, complainant is not appearing before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre for amicable settlement as directed by this Court. Moreover, the present case was stated to have been registered against the petitioner after nine months of dissolution of marriage of the parties. The final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by virtue of order dated September 30, 2013, by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this respect. 30.06.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) sumit.k Judge Sumit Kumar 2014.06.30 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document