Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Vijendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr. on 5 August, 2016
Bench: S.A. Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh
1
ITEM NO.314 COURT NO.10 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8819/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
21/09/2015 in CRMBA No. 3560/2015 passed by the High Court Of
Rajasthan At Jaipur)
VIJENDRA SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date :05/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Kumar,AOR
For Respondent(s) Dr. Harsh Vardhan Surana,AOR
Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Adv.
Ms. Deepali S. Surana, Adv.
Mr. Anil M., Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Prateek Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli,AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
We find from the special leave petition vide Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by page No. 'F' that the petitioner has made a tall CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2016.08.08 16:28:33 IST Reason: claim as follows :
2“... the plot which Complainant alleges that the same was given as dowry, the said plot is in the name of the complainant herself which was purchased by the Petitioner herein in her name and also for putting the structure over the said plot, the Petitioner herein taken loan from HDFC Ltd. And repaying the same through EMI without any default; despite the differences between the Petitioner herein and the Complainant, the Petitioner has made the Complainant as nominee in the Life Insurance Policy.” This statement is obviously made with intention to give the impression that such a person would not have made a demand for dowry.
Learned counsel for the respondent(s) points out that in fact, this plot was purchased in the name of petitioner's wife by her father long before the marriage, the receipt of payment of which is dated 08.04.1996, as mentioned in Annexure P-2 enclosed with additional documents filed by respondent No. 2.
We are of the view that such conduct dis-entitles the petitioner from seeking anticipatory bail. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
[ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Indu Pokhriyal ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
3