Manmohan Singh @ Teni v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- 34295-2022 Date of decision : 19.04.2023 Manmohan Singh @ Teni ...... Petitioner V/S State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI

Present:

Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for the complainant. **** AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL) The petitioner-Manmohan Singh @ Teni has filed the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 150 dated 29.06.2022, under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2) (n), 323, 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Safidon, District Jind.

The facts of the case are that the prosecutrix gave her statement to the police that she is married to Randhir and is mother of two children. She was on talking terms with Manmohan Singh @ Teni for the last about four years. Manmohan Singh @ Teni through some other person had shoot his wife so that they could stay together after performing marriage. She was also booked by the police for the said offence and she remained in jail. Her bail was arranged by Manmohan Singh @ Teni. After getting bail she was brought in his house and thereafter she was provided a room on rent in Geeta Colony, Safidon. She was given the assurance that he would keep her as his wife and perform marriage. During this period she was physically exploited but later on he refused to marry

-2her. On 24.06.2022, he gave her beating and tried to burn her with iron. With these allegations, the present FIR has been registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he is falsely implicated in this case. He was granted ad-interim bail vide order dated 08.08.2022 and thereafter he has already joined the investigation and fully cooperated with the investigation of the case. He will still abide by the terms of the bail order. It is prayed that the ad-interim bail granted in his favour may kindly be confirmed. The bail application is opposed by learned counsel for the complainant.

The learned State counsel has filed detailed status report. According to which the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. The petitioner has joined the investigation on 17.08.2022. He was also medically examined. There are serious allegations against the present petitioner. Further investigation is still going on. Considering the gravity of offence, the anticipatory bail application may be declined.

I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record. The petitioner was granted ad-interim bail on 08.08.2022 and after that he joined the investigation and fully cooperated with the investigating officer. He is already medically examined. The facts of the case referred above indicates that both the prosecutrix as well as the present petitioner are major and were married. The facts indicate that both of them were indulging in extra marital affair. The registration of another FIR No.106 dated 08.05.2021, under Sections 307, 120-B, 506 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act is a matter of record. So far as the present FIR is concerned, he is not required for any other purpose. Therefore considering the

-3factual position, the ad-interim bail already granted vide order dated 08.08.2022 stands confirmed, subject to the conditions enshrined under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition is accordingly accepted.

(AMARJOT BHATTI ) JUDGE 19.04.2023.

Sunil Devi Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No