Bhupinder Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Another

  

 
    


 

    



  !

"

# 

 


    
 

  !"#"$%

 

$%& '()*

  !

 +

( )%("

# 

 &  ' (  ,

 



 ! -./



 

&#

1* 

 -   .)2 3/

#& 


  ++0 + 451 

6   0  ! 6)( 35


'!

7+( 



  Succinctly put, the facts, as alleged by the prosecution, are that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with respondent No.2, on 26.01.2014, in accordance with Sikh rites and rituals. Soon after marriage, the petitioner was subjected to harassment in lieu of dowry by respondent No.2 and his family. When the petitioner refused to hand over her entire salary to respondent No.2 and his family, they gave her severe beatings and turned her out of the matrimonial home. A panchayat was convened in which respondent No.2 and his family refused to settle the petitioner in her matrimonial home causing the petitioner to register FIR(supra).

 3.

Respondent No.2 sought anticipatory bail but was denied the same by learned Sessions Court vide order dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 approached this Court wherein he was granted interim bail vide order dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure P-3). The matter was referred to mediation and a compromise was arrived at, as reflected by settlement agreement dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-4). Subsequently, the interim bail was made absolute by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that respondent No.2 was granted anticipatory bail on the basis of the compromise deed dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-4) wherein he had agreed to reside with and maintain the petitioner and their minor child. However, once anticipatory bail was granted to him, he left the company of the petitioner. Moreover, the dowry articles, which include 8-9 tola of gold and Rs. 1,50,000/-, are still in the possession of respondent No.2. As such, the concession of bail availed by him deserves to be withdrawn as he has played fraud with the Court. 8 *0

'

' 0

  (



'

'   # #' 

& 

0 #

1 # ''1:   #

  &

:''# * '&    "& # ',    #& 


; 

# '

'+ 

"

  ''0 (  '':   *: Moreover, interim bail was granted to respondent No.2 before a compromise was arrived at between the parties. As such, there is a justified case for grant of anticipatory bail to respondent No.2, irrespective of the compromise arrived at

) between the parties.

3 ,

+  &0# '  ''0  +

; *

  '# ' +

   # :    0 

' +

5 


  

'$'& + '#

&0

+(  &# '+ '&

# 0

* & 9:* (

:' + 

'+  '#

& &0

 

' ( :   # +#

$      &    <'&  0

* 

 0'0   0

# '  *

+0

(  


 

  , :  " ' *:  0

0 # ' #''

#& 9=#'!

+


 




    ( '':
       

 

  

        

 

     

  

          

        



 

  



 

   

 

  

            

  

6 ) >0 9=#'!

+


 



    !



  

"#""$( $0

0> 

 

(# * '':
!    

   

 

     

   

        "  #  

          

  

 

 

    

$         



 %



& ' #    

 

     

                  



(  '     #           

      





   

       



  

     

'     

 

 





   

) '       

* '      

      

    

+ '  

         

      

   

  

  

  

,  '                 

-

     







 5*: #*( 


   *:

#

1:' +

#" *



  " ?

'

  #   #'    

  &  *  &      + 0    

 -   .)2 3/ +

& 

 1

:':

  #& 




 ) 0'&(   

   

  +  0 +''



'

./( &( '' '

  '

 (



  . 7  $0@   A@1 7

#'  A@1