Jaswinder Kaur v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....

Criminal Misc. No.M-22565 of 2019 Date of decision:28.05.2019 Jaswinder Kaur

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monika Jalota, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.91 dated 25.8.2018 registered for the offences under Sections 306 and 34 IPC at Police Station GRP, Bathinda, District Bathinda.

Notice of motion was issued in this case.

Ms. Monika Jalota, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. As per allegations in the FIR, the complainant stated that the marriage of his son Bikramjeet Singh was solemnized with Jaswinder KaurHARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-22565 of 2019 [2] present petitioner. There was matrimonial dispute and Bikramjeet Singh filed divorce petition whereas Jaswinder Kaur has filed a petition for maintenance. As per the allegations in the FIR, after attending the Court hearing in the case, Harpal Singh co-accused, Manvinder Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur had caught hold of him from collar and Manvinder Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur had given slaps and beatings to Bikramjeet Singh due to which he became very upset and he committed suicide on the very next day committed suicide by jumping before a train. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the present petitioner is the main accused and due to the abetment of the present petitioner, Bikramjikt Singh committed suicide.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, therefore, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

May 28, 2019.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh