Manjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153570
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-30-2014
AppellantManjit Kaur
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
crm no.m-43472 of 2013 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm no.m-43472 of 2013 date of decision:- 30.06.2014 manjit kaur .....petitioner versus state of punjab .....respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice mehinder singh sullar present: mr.amandeep singh manaise, advocate, for the petitioner. ms.amarjit khurana, additional advocate general, punjab, for the respondent-state. mr.amit mehta, advocate for the complainant. **** mehinder singh sullar , j.(oral) petitioner-manjit kaur widow of balkar singh, unfortunate mother-in-law of complainant ramandeep kaur, has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against her along with her son and main accused balbir singh (husband) and others.vide fir no.116 dated 21.11.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 498-a, 406 and 506 read with section 34 ipc, by the police of police station kanwan, district pathankot. 2. notice of the petition was issued to the state. kumar naresh 2014.07.03 15:28 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-43472 of 2013 -2- 3. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. during the cours.of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by a co-ordinate bench of this court (ritu bahri, j.).on december 19, 2013: - “learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a widow and her son has solemnized marriage with ramandeep kaur complainant on 12.12.2007. he is in germany and an attempt can be made for an out of court settlement with ramandeep kaur-complainant daughter of kashmira singh, resident of village jamalpur, p.o.sarna, tehsil and district pathankot. the petitioner shall deposit rs.20,000/- with the registry of this court, which shall be paid to the complainant as litigation expenses. notice of motion for 12.02.2014. meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called by the investigating officer. in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail by the investigating officer on his furnishing bail bonds/sureties to his satisfaction, subject to the following conditions, as envisaged under section 438(2) cr.p.c:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave india without the previous permission of the court. (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. it is further made clear that since marriage was solemnized in the year 2007, in case no positive instructions are given to the court on the next date of hearing, this order shall be vacated.”. kumar naresh 2014.07.03 15:28 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-43472 of 2013 -3- 5. at the very outset, on instructions from asi harjit singh, learned state counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. she is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. there is no history of her previous involvement in any other criminal case. all the main allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to main accused balbir singh (husband of the complainant).moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the court of magistrate. even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, 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 19.12.2013, 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 her bail, in this court. june 30, 2014 (mehinder singh sullar) naresh.k judge kumar naresh 2014.07.03 15:28 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM No.M-43472 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-43472 of 2013 Date of Decision:- 30.06.2014 Manjit Kaur .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms.Amarjit Khurana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

Mr.Amit Mehta, Advocate for the complainant.

**** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Manjit Kaur widow of Balkar Singh, unfortunate mother-in-law of complainant Ramandeep Kaur, has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against her along with her son and main accused Balbir Singh (husband) and otheRs.vide FIR No.116 dated 21.11.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Kanwan, District Pathankot.

2.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

Kumar Naresh 2014.07.03 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-43472 of 2013 -2- 3.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

4.

During the couRs.of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Ritu Bahri, J.).on December 19, 2013: - “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a widow and her son has solemnized marriage with Ramandeep kaur complainant on 12.12.2007.

He is in Germany and an attempt can be made for an out of Court settlement with Ramandeep Kaur-complainant daughter of Kashmira Singh, resident of village Jamalpur, P.O.Sarna, Tehsil and District Pathankot.

The petitioner shall deposit Rs.20,000/- with the Registry of this Court, which shall be paid to the complainant as litigation expenses.

Notice of motion for 12.02.2014.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on his furnishing bail bonds/sureties to his satisfaction, subject to the following conditions, as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of Section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.

It is further made clear that since marriage was solemnized in the year 2007, in case no positive instructions are given to the Court on the next date of hearing, this order shall be vacated.”

.

Kumar Naresh 2014.07.03 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-43472 of 2013 -3- 5.

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Harjit Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation.

She is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage.

There is no history of her previous involvement in any other criminal case.

All the main allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to main accused Balbir Singh (husband of the complainant).Moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate.

Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, 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 19.12.2013, 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 her bail, in this Court.

June 30, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE Kumar Naresh 2014.07.03 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh