Jagmit Kaur And Anar v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-20327 of 2018 .....

Date of decision:16.7.2018 Jagmeet Kaur and another

...Petitioners

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Pawan Sharda, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.83 dated 20.12.2017 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 306, 420 and 120B IPC at Police Station Mehal Kalan, District Barnala. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Pawan Sharda, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record.

Cr. Misc. No.M-20327 of 2018 [2] From the record, I find that the FIR has been registered on the statement of Gurchet Singh-brother of Satnam Singh (since deceased). As per the allegations in the FIR Satnam Singh was married to Navdeep Kaur daughter of Jagmeet Kaur and Daljit Singh-present petitioners. In the year 2015, Satnam Singh was engaged with Navdeep Kaur-daughter of the petitioenrs. At that time, it was decided by both the families that the expenditure of sending Navdeep Kaur to Newzealand and on her study and marriage would be done by the complainant's family. On 25.3.2016, Satnam Singh got married with Navdeep Kaur. As per the allegations, `40 lakhs were spent. Then Navdeep Kaur went to Newzealand and Satnam Singh got visa regarding her visit to Newzealand. The matter was taken up with the family of Navdeep Kaur i.e. her parents/petitioners. When the petitioners were contacted they refused to listen and stated that they have nothing to do with him and treat him as dead etc. As per the allegations Satnam Singh committed suicide.

The present petitioners have been in custody since 19.1.2018. They are not required for interrogation or investigation purposes as they are in judicial custody. The trial of the case is likely to take long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners in custody till the final disposal of the case.

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be

Cr. Misc. No.M-20327 of 2018 [3] released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of `50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

However, nothing stated above will constitute my opinion on the merits of the case.

July 16, 2018.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No