Baljit Singh v. State Of Punjab

  
    
!"#$"%"
"

" "
& " & '() *

+", -



   

 

  

" 
.#/ 0 !0 "
0"#""

 

 


 !

 
 


!

"
 #
$%  

&&& "
0"#""-!1 "/2 '


 




 
!
()*

+

+

"
,


-.
/  
#, -.
0

$

!
 !  20.03.2024

!

Women, District SAS Nagar, Mohali 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC')


!

 
!
  

 



  


 
 
/  
-.


 
  
   

 



#
!/ 

2

#
3
3 2
/"
  
 
 
 
# 

/
# 

 
 
2

4






/
/
  

 !
/
/



 
4
/

#
 

 
3
 
 
 

 
3


5



 "
 !
/

 
 
 
 



  
2
   
 
 , /
 
3

)

'


 




2
 
 

 

 
 



 
2

! 
 
 
  

 
-. 

/"

 2
!

!//

 !
  
  ! 
(67
 
(8*,

.

+

 


  
 


  !

#

!2

!! 

/ 

#2

 !/ 2
/
 2
2
# 
2

'



    


 

#
/
 
3


 
!
2
/

 

// 
 

2


     
!
  




9
'


 
 
 
 
 
 


4 
 

,


4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he is harassing his wife and is subjecting her to mental cruelty. For conducting thorough investigation of the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Therefore, it is argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

6.

The petitioner has been booked in this case on the allegations that he wants to solemnize marriage with one Manpreet Kaur and the said Manpreet Kaur and the petitioner himself are exerting pressure upon her and are leading her to mental trauma. These allegations even if believed to be

3 correct on the face of record, do not make out any case for commission of offences for which he has been booked i.e. the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC as there is no whisper in the FIR that the victim has been subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry or any property belonging to her has been criminally misappropriated by the petitioner and converted to his own use. In view of the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comment upon the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Therefore, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner would be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his joining investigation within a period of fifteen days from the date of passing of this order, subject to compliance of other usual terms and conditions of Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. and further subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating/Arresting Officer.

4"
0"#""5 !&

+", -