Crm No. M-18040 of 2014. Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1157749
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-22-2014
AppellantCrm No. M-18040 of 2014.
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crm no.m-18040 of 2014 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm no.m-18040 of 2014. date of decision : 22.07.2014. sunil kumar ...petitioner versus state of haryana ...respondent coram:- hon'ble mr.justice tejinder singh dhindsa. present: dr. govinder singh brar, advocate for the petitioner. mr.vikas malik, assistant advocate general, haryana. mr.gurjeet singh kaura, advocate for the complainant. *** tejinder singh dhindsa, j. (oral) this order shall dispose of the instant petition preferred under section 438 cr.p.c.seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case fir no.27 dated 30.01.2014, under sections 323, 452, 506, 34 ipc, registered at police station ellenabad, district sirsa. this court, while issuing notice of motion on 23.05.2014, had directed the petitioner to join investigation and simultaneously, ad- interim protection as regards arrest had been granted to the petitioner. learned state counsel upon instructions from si udayvir singh would apprise the court that the petitioner has since joined investigation but he is not co-operating fully. mr.gurjeet singh kaura, learned counsel appearing for the complainant would, vehemently, oppose the present petition by contending that the petitioner is a history-sheeter and a number of other criminal proceedings are pending against him. counsel for the parties have been heard. kanchan it has gone uncontroverted that the injuries suffered by the 2014.07.24 10:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-18040 of 2014 2 complainant, namely, vidya devi and which were attributed to the present petitioner, have been opined to be simple in nature. it is also not disputed that the present petitioner, namely, sunil kumar is the cousin brother of kanta devi i.e.daughter-in-law of the complainant. it is further conceded that there is a matrimonial dispute in the family and in pursuance thereto kanta devi has already got an fir lodged against her husband as also the present complainant, namely, vidya devi. under such circumstances, false implication of the present petitioner cannot be ruled out. that apart, learned state counsel would even inform this court that in two of the firs.out of the total number of three registered against the petitioner, a compromise has already been effected. in the totality of circumstances, this court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be warranted. accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 23.05.2014 passed by this court is made absolute. petition disposed of. july 22, 2014. (tejinder singh dhindsa) kanchan judge kanchan 2014.07.24 10:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM No.M-18040 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-18040 of 2014.

Date of Decision : 22.07.2014.

Sunil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present: Dr.

Govinder Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr.Gurjeet Singh Kaura, Advocate for the complainant.

*** Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

(Oral) This order shall dispose of the instant petition preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C.seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.27 dated 30.01.2014, under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa.

This Court, while issuing notice of motion on 23.05.2014, had directed the petitioner to join investigation and simultaneously, ad- interim protection as regards arrest had been granted to the petitioner.

Learned State counsel upon instructions from SI Udayvir Singh would apprise the Court that the petitioner has since joined investigation but he is not co-operating fully.

Mr.Gurjeet Singh Kaura, learned counsel appearing for the complainant would, vehemently, oppose the present petition by contending that the petitioner is a history-sheeter and a number of other criminal proceedings are pending against him.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Kanchan It has gone uncontroverted that the injuries suffered by the 2014.07.24 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-18040 of 2014 2 complainant, namely, Vidya Devi and which were attributed to the present petitioner, have been opined to be simple in nature.

It is also not disputed that the present petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar is the cousin brother of Kanta Devi i.e.daughter-in-law of the complainant.

It is further conceded that there is a matrimonial dispute in the family and in pursuance thereto Kanta Devi has already got an FIR lodged against her husband as also the present complainant, namely, Vidya Devi.

Under such circumstances, false implication of the present petitioner cannot be ruled out.

That apart, learned State counsel would even inform this Court that in two of the FIRs.out of the total number of three registered against the petitioner, a compromise has already been effected.

In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be warranted.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 23.05.2014 passed by this Court is made absolute.

Petition disposed of.

July 22, 2014.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) kanchan JUDGE Kanchan 2014.07.24 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh