Sonu Singh v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (through video conferencing) Decided on : 10.11.2021 Sonu Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present :

Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.PC for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.01 dated 02.01.2021 registered under Sections 306/34 IPC,1860 at Police Station GRP, Hisar. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the story put-forth by the complainant at the time of registration of the FIR in question, on the face of it, is highly unnatural and improbable. He has submitted that the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased took place in the year 2009 and the occurrence in question took place on 02.01.2021 i.e. after 12 years of marriage. He has further submitted that in the FIR in question, only vague allegations of harassment have been levelled without

-2as much as any mention of any specific incident, date, month or even year of the same. A prayer has therefore been made to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner as he had been in custody since 12.01.2021 and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant while opposing the prayer of counsel opposite has drawn the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR in question by the father of the deceased Gurmeet Kaur, wherein he categorically alleged that his deceased daughter was being continuously harassed ever since her marriage in the year 2009, as the petitioner and his family were dissatisfied with the dowry received.

It has been further submitted that a complaint was also given in the police station by the deceased on 07.07.2015 in the said regard and subsequent thereto all the accused persons including the petitioner after accepting their guilt had entered into a panchayati compromise. However, it was short lived as the petitioner and the other accused continued to ill-treat the deceased to such an extent that she along with her minor daughter committed suicide by jumping before a running train. Learned State counsel has further apprised the Court that two out of the 27 prosecution witnesses cited stand examined by the trial Court as on date.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

In the wake of aforementioned, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that anything observed

-3hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE 10.11.2021 sonia Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No