High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/27566/2016dismissed

Sandeep Singh v. State Of Haryana

2016-08-11Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

CRM-M-27566-2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27566-2016 Date of Decision:- 11.08.2016 Sandeep Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the complainant.

**** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Petitioner is seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case arising out of FIR No.828 dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sirsa City, District Sirsa.

Vide order dated 03.08.2016, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa.

Perusal of said order shows that the complainant Megha was married to petitioner Sandeep Singh on 04.09.2006 according to Hindu Naresh Kumar 2016.08.30 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rites and Ceremonies at Sharda Palace, Sirsa. Thereafter, the accused used

CRM-M-27566-2016 -2to make taunts for not bringing sufficient dowry articles. Later on, petitioner had left the company of the complainant and has been living with one Gurjeet Kaur. It has been admitted by the petitioner that he would have no relation either with Gurjeet Kaur or with any girl in future. All the dowry articles of the complainant are with the accused. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record, this Court is of the considered view that very serious and direct allegations are assigned to the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is essential to interrogate him and to collect the evidence. Therefore, taking into consideration the the allegations of offences against the petitioner and without commenting further anything on merits, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above would reflect on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial.

August 11, 2016 ( RITU BAHRI ) naresh.k JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Naresh Kumar 2016.08.30 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh