Mahenderpal And Another vs State Of Haryana on 3 August, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mahenderpal And Another vs State Of Haryana on 3 August, 2012

Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi

Criminal Misc. No. M-18036 of 2012                       -1-




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


                             Criminal Misc. No. M-18036 of 2012
                             Date of decision:-03.08.2012

Mahenderpal and another

                                                   ...Petitioners

                             Versus

State of Haryana

                                                   ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI


Present:- Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate
          for the petitioners.

              Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl.A.G. Haryana.

              Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate
              for the complainant.

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI J.(Oral)

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners Mahenderpal and Parmila Devi, who are brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanad and Nandoi) of the complainant, Suman Devi.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in compliance of the order dated 13.6.2012, the petitioners have joined the investigation and are no more required by the investigating agency for any other purpose. He further contends that the Criminal Misc. No. M-18036 of 2012 -2- allegations were levelled against the father-in-law also but he was found to be innocent during the course of the investigation. He further submits that on account of incompatible behaviour of Suman Devi and her husband, whole family has been implicated in this case. He also contends that the petitioners are brother-in-law and sister-in- law of the complainant and they had nothing to do with the matrimonial life of Suman Devi and her husband.

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Balwan Singh of Police Station, Kanina, District Mohindergarh, admits the factum of joining of the investigation by the petitioners. He further submits that their custodial interrogation is no more required.

Learned counsel for the complainant Mr. J.P. Sharma, has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the ground that they have committed the serious offence of forcible abortion.

Heard.

The petitioners are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. The marriage of Parmila Devi-petitioner No.2 was solemnized in the year 2005, i.e. much prior to the marriage of the complainant. The petitioners had nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the complainant. They have joined the investigation and are no more required for any other purpose.

Criminal Misc. No. M-18036 of 2012 -3-

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the present petition is accepted. The order dated 13.6.2012, passed by this Court, whereby ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners, is made absolute. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when required to do so. They shall also comply with the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

August 03, 2012                      ( NARESH KUMAR SANGHI )
Vijay Asija                                   JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court