Inder Kumar v. State Of Punjab And ANR

CRM No.M-40202 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M- 40202 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision: November 1 , 2017.

Inder Kumar ...... PETITIONER (s)

Versus

State of Punjab and another ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:

Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

*****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ***** LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.181 dated 05.10.2016 under Sections 363/366A IPC registered at Police Station Daba Ludhiana, District Ludhiana. It is submitted that the petitioner solemnized marriage with respondent No.2 i.e., daughter of the complainant. This marriage was solemnized against the wishes of the complainant and her family members. Now the petitioner and his wife are residing in a peaceful and harmonious Omkar Singh 2017.11.03 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-40202 of 2016 -2manner in their matrimonial home. No offence is thus made out against the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition be allowed. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Jasbir Singh, verifies and affirms that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are still living together in their matrimonial home after solemnization of marriage. It is further verified that the petitioner has joined investigation subsequent to interim order dated 10.11.2016 passed by this Court. No recovery is to be effected from him. The petitioner is not reported to be involved in any other case. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

It is reflected in order dated 22.02.2017 of this Court that the complainant came present in this Court on the said date and interacted with respondent No.2, her daughter. Respondent No.2 stated that she was residing happily with the petitioner in her matrimonial home. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 10.11.2016 is made absolute. It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition. ( LISA GILL ) November 1 , 2017.

JUDGE 'om'

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Omkar Singh 2017.11.03 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh