← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/34341/2014dismissed

Lakhwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2015-01-15Mr. Justice S.C. Malte3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 15, 2015 Lakhwinder Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:

Mr.Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

.......

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, Lakhwinder Singh, 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.18, dated 28.08.2014, registered at Police Station, Women Jagraon, Ludhiana, Rural.

Learned counsel contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are general in nature; the petitioner made genuine efforts to sort out the matter with his wife (complainant)

-2but she did not agree to his proposal and that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Chamkaur Singh of Police Station, Women, Jagraon, Ludhiana, submits that the petitioner is the husband and there are specific allegations against him with regard to demand of dowry and harassment of the complainant on that account. He further contends that in spite of interim directions issued by this Court, the petitioner did not cooperate with the Investigating Agency and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the present case.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

It is averred in the first information report that the petitioner started harassing the complainant on account of nonfulfilment of demand of dowry. After getting a Government job, the petitioner intensified his misbehaviour with the complainant and mentally and physically tortured her.

There are specific allegations against the petitioner of maltreatment of his wife on account of demand of dowry. No

-3ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed.

The interim directions issued vide order, dated 06.10.2014 are hereby vacated.

January 15, 2015 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) meenu JUDGE