Gujraj Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37612-2019 Date of decision:9.12.2019 GUJRAJ SINGH ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL ****

Present:

Mr. Samrit Gill, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the complainant.

**** GURVINDER SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No.50 dated 9.7.2019 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, Police Station Qadian, District Batala.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Lakhwinder Kaur wherein it has been alleged that she was married to Gujraj Singh about 4 years back and her parents had given several articles in dowry as per their capacity. But shortly after her marriage her husband and other members of his family had started harassing her in order to press upon their demands of more dowry and started demanding a car. It is further alleged that even at the time when she was pregnant, she was given beatings by the accused as a GAURAV SOROT 2019.12.09 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(2) CRM-M-37612-2019 result of which there was miscarriage. It is further alleged that ultimately she was thrown out of her matrimonial home after giving her beatings. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present FIR is an outcome of matrimonial incompatibility and that all the allegations levelled in the FIR pertaining to alleged allegations of demand of dowry have been levelled falsely.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner has specifically been named in the FIR, no case for grant of bail is made out. It has further been informed that pursuant to interim directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has joined investigation. 5.

I have considered rival contentions addressed before this Court. The case apparently arises out of some matrimonial discord between the parties. It will be only after evidence is led that the veracity of the allegations may be established. In any case, since the petitioner has already joined investigation, his custodial interrogation is not warranted. Accordingly the petition is accepted and the interim directions issued vide dated 6.9.2019 by this Court are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner would appear before Investigating Officer as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 9.12.2019 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2019.12.09 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document