Gurlal Singh @ Ladi v. State Of Punjab And ANR

Crl. Misc. No. M-13658 of 2017 [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-13658 of 2017 Date of Decision : February 06, 2018 Gurlal Singh @ Ladi...................................................Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ................................. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL ...

Present:

Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.

...

LISA GILL, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 22 dated 16.02.2017 under Section 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran.

It is submitted that the aforesaid FIR has been registered due to temperamental differences between the petitioner and the complainant. The complainant, it is contended, left the matrimonial home at her own and not due to any ill-treatment or harassment on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it is wrongly mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner has refused to rehabilitate the complainant. The petitioner has always expressed his desire for resumption of matrimonial ties but the complainant has not come forward. The petitioner, it is submitted, has joined investigation pursuant to interim order passed by this Court. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.

It is noticed that the submission on behalf of the petitioner that Rupinder Kaur 2018.02.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Crl. Misc. No. M-13658 of 2017 [ 2 ] he is ready to rehabilitate the complainant in the matrimonial home if she so agrees is noted at the time of issuance of notice of motion. Respondent No.2 despite service has not appeared. Matter was adjourned on the last date of hearing to await appearance of respondent No.2 but today again there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Charan Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. The petitioner is not reported to be involved in any other criminal case. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is considered just and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated 24.04.2017 is made absolute.

None of the observations made here-in-above shall be construed to be a reflection on merits of the case and shall have no bearing on trial.

( LISA GILL ) 06.02.2018 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No Rupinder Kaur 2018.02.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document