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 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Swinder Kaur @ Shindo And Others vs Harpreet Kaur on 16 August, 2013

Author: Rekha Mittal

Bench: Rekha Mittal

           CRM-M No.26724 of 2013                                                               1

             IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

                                                         CRM-M No.26724 of 2013
                                                         Date of decision : 16.08.2013

           Swinder Kaur @ Shindo and others
                                                                             ... Petitioners

                                     Versus

           Harpreet Kaur
                                                                             ... Respondent

           CORAM:              HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

           Present:            Mr.Ritesh Pandey, Advocate
                               for the petitioners.

           REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL)

The petitioners pray for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in a private complaint No.253 dated 21.11.2011, under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 IPC titled Harpreet Kaur Vs. Gurmeet Singh, pending in the Court of Sh.Harpreet Singh, JMIC, Batala.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were allowed anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur but the petitioners were not informed about the order by their Advocate rendering them unable to comply with directions to surrender before the trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners submitted an application on 15.06.2013 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur permitting them to furnish their surety bonds before the trial Court, but the same was declined. It is further argued that the petitioners are ready to face trial without any default and subject to the terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case Davinder Kumar 2013.08.19 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.26724 of 2013 2 file. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required as they have been summoned under Sections 406, 498-A/34 IPC. The petitioners have not gained in any manner by not furnishing the bail bonds in compliance with the directions issued by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur except to incur the risk of being taken in custody, rather have been put to harassment and inconvenience of coming to this Court.

Keeping in view of the totality of facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed with the direction to the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days and on their appearance, they shall be admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(ii) they shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

However, if the petitioners fail to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days, their petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The respondent shall be at liberty to move an application to this Court, if she has any grievance to express in regard to the bail granted to the petitioners.

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE August 16, 2013.

Davinder Kumar