Chamkaur Singh And Others v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-9541-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:-30.9.2019 Chamkaur Singh and others ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Nagar Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashok Singh Choudhary, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by HC Naresh Kumar.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.27 dated 8.2.2019 at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Leela Rani, wherein it has been alleged that she had received a matrimonial proposal in respect of marriage of her daughter from Gurmeet Singh (a common friend) and pursuant to the same 'roka' ceremony was held on 20.6.2018, wherein gifts were given to the accused. It is alleged that an amount of `11,000/- was given to petitioner No.1 Chamkaur Singh. However, shortly after the said ceremony, the accused started demanding a 'Bullet' motorcycle and when the complainant agreed for the same, they raised a demand for a luxury car. It is further alleged that a Pankaj Kakkar 2019.10.01 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-9541-2019 (O&M) demand for an amount of `7 lacs was also raised and when the complainant expressed her inability to accede to the said demands, the accused flatly refused to get the marriage solemnized.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case and that it is apparently a case where there was some misunderstanding amongst the parties and an apparent incompatibility between the boy and the girl. It has further been submitted that the entire allegations are false and all have been cooked up simply in order to pressurize the petitioners.

4.

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since specific allegations have been levelled in the FIR, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It has, however, been informed that the petitioners have since joined investigation and that infact upon conclusion of investigation the challan already stands presented. 5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting anything on merits of the case and while bearing in mind that investigation is already complete and challan stands presented, in my opinion, the present case is certainly not such, which would warrant custodial interrogation at this stage. The petition, as such, is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 1.3.2019 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioners shall appear regularly before the trial Court and abide by any such condition as may be imposed by the trial Court for their appearance.

30.9.2019 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Pankaj Kakkar 2019.10.01 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document