Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vinod Chauhan And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2018

Author: Jaishree Thakur

Bench: Jaishree Thakur

Crl. Misc. M-6803-2018 (O&M)                                                  -1-


    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                          Crl. Misc. M-6803-2018 (O&M)
                                          Date of Decision:July 30, 2018

Vinod Chauhan and another

                                                                   ...Petitioners

                                        Versus

State of Punjab

                                                                  ...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:-    Mr.Raman Goklaney, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.

                                        *****

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of arrest in FIR No. 27 dated 23.01.2018 under Section 304-B of the IPC registered at Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that a reading of the FIR would reveal that the demand of dowry i.e. of a motorcycle and mobile phone etc. was mainly against the son-in-law i.e. son of the petitioners herein. It is further submitted that on similar allegations two other co-accused namely Vikas and Garima have already been allowed anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. It is also contended that they were residing separately within the same compound but were not living together. It is also argued that Vikas, husband of the deceased is in custody 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 13:21:11 ::: Crl. Misc. M-6803-2018 (O&M) -2- and there is no one else to look after the minor child who is in their custody.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case and on the direction of this Court, they have joined the investigation. It is also contended that nothing is to be recovered from them.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that petitioners have joined the investigation and they are not required for the custodial interrogation.

In view of the facts that the petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation and have joined the investigation, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and order dated 15.05.2018 granting interim bail to the petitioners is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438 Sub Section 2 Clauses (i)

(ii) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.




                                                (JAISHREE THAKUR)
July 30, 2018                                         JUDGE
seema




             Whether speaking/reasoned                           Yes
             Whether reportable                                  Yes/No




                               2 of 2
            ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 13:21:11 :::