← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/31086/2015dismissed

Harpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

2015-10-01Mr. Justice S.C. Malte2 pages

CRM-M-31086-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31086-2015 Date of Decision: October 1, 2015 Harpreet Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:

Mr. Bhupinder Singh Sudan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Harpreet Singh, son of Santokh Singh, resident of House No. 1728, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 74, dated 1.7.2015, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Ludhiana. Learned counsel contends that after twelve years of marriage, the present FIR has been lodged by Harmeet Kaur (wife) against the petitioner and other family members; the petitioner has joined the investigation and all the dowry articles were returned; the present case is a counter blast to a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and that no offence for which the petitioner has been booked, is made out qua the petitioner.

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2015.10.01 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-31086-2015 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner alongwith his family members not only misappropriated the Istridhan of the informant, but also thrown her out of the house with a rider that unless she fulfils their demand of `25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five lacs only) and also to bring a luxury car, she would not be rehabilitated. Despite the interim direction granted in favour of the petitioner by learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigating officer. There are specific allegations of harassment, torture and misbehaviour with the informant by the petitioner. The Custodial interrogation appears to be necessary in the present case.

No ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.

Dismissed.

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE October 1, 2015 Pkapoor PRASHANT KAPOOR 2015.10.01 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document