Punjab-Haryana High Court
Piara Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 14 July, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M- 14629 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.7.2010
Piara Singh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.R.S.Jhand , Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G.Punjab.
Mr.Parvez Chugh, Advocate,for the complainant.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 52 dated 13.4.2010 under Sections 406/ 498-A/ 494/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), registered at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur.
The allegations against the petitioners are that at the time of marriage of the complainant with Balwinder Singh on 15.2.1998, her parents had given sufficient Istridhan including gold jewellery to her. The complainant and Balwinder Singh were blessed with two children. Thereafter, Balwinder Singh died in the year 2002 and the complainant was re-married with the younger brother of Balwinder Singh i.e. Jaswant Singh. The parents of the Criminal Misc. No.M- 14629 of 2010 (O&M) -2- complainant gave further articles by way of Istridhan including gold jewellery to the complainant. However, the in-laws family of the complainant started raising a demand of car. The said demand could not be met and the complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial home along with her elder son after giving beatings to her. The petitioners performed second marriage of their son Jaswant Singh on 2.9.2009 without getting a divorce from the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 18.5.2010, the petitioners have joined investigation.
Learned State counsel, who is assisted by ASI Davinder Singh and learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that although the petitioners have joined investigation but the recovery of the gold ornaments has not been effected so far. The petitioners are required for custodial interrogation.
Keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is made out. The petitioners are required for custodial interrogation Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 14, 2010 anita