Jarnail Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34092-2019 Date of decision:20.11.2019 JARNAIL SINGH ....Petitioner

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Rashmi Attri, AAG, Punjab.

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

The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No.40 dated 23.6.2019 under Sections 323, 506, 354, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bilga District Jalandhar (Rural). 2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Sonia Kaur wherein it has been alleged that she was married with the petitioner about 5 years back and that her husband after the marriage left for Italy from where he used to frequently talk to his mother and sister on telephone but whenever the complainant tried to talk to him he used to hurl abuses. It is further alleged that after the complainant's husband returned from Italy he started residing with his mother, sister and brother at village Bilga and used to quarrel with her and also used to give beatings to her. It is further alleged that brother of petitioner-Jarnail Singh pressed upon the complainant to GAURAV SOROT 2019.11.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(2) CRM-M-34092-2019 divorce the petitioner and even gave fist blows to her while she was pregnant.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a false FIR has been registered against the petitioner in order to pressurize him to part with some money & property and that the entire allegations regarding alleged beatings are absolutely false.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since there are specific allegations levelled in the FIR, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It has further been informed that the petitioner has since joined investigation.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations and that the petitioner has since joined investigation, in my opinion, it is not a case which would warrant custodial interrogation. Accordingly the petition is accepted and the interim directions issued vide dated 22.8.2019 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) 20.11.2019 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2019.11.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document