NRI’s parents granted bail. Hubby accused of dowry demand & illicit relation with bhabi! P&H HC

* NRI husband accused of 5 lakhs dowry demand and illicit relations with his own Bhabi !!
* Parents have disowned son and are living separately
* Parents seek Anticipatory bail which is rejected at lower courts
* Parents approach HC where they are granted bail

*********************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No. M- 24787 of 2013(O&M)

Date of Decision: September 20, 2013.

Mukhtiar Singh @Mukhtiara and another …… PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab …… RESPONDENT (s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

Present: Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mrs. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

*****

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.

(Oral)

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.19 dated 30.06.2013, under Sections 498A/406 IPC, registered at police station NRI, District Hoshiarpur.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners.

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 23.08.2013 passed the following order:-

Crl.M.No.37685 of 2013 Requests for placing on record copy of the
complaint as Annexure P4.

The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.M-24787 of 2013
Contends that petitioners are old persons aged more than 75 years.
Further submitted that petitioners are having three sons and,
however, they had disowned all the three sons and are living
separately and they also filed a civil suit against their all the
three daughters-in-law as they were trying to interfere in day-to-day
life of petitioners with intention to grab the residential house in
which petitioners are residing. Further submitted that they are not
in contact with their son, who is residing abroad and rather
complainant is in contact with her husband. Further submitted that
the main allegations, as per FIR, are also against the husband, who
raised demand of `5.00 lacs for starting his business abroad. It is
also contended that another allegation is also against the husband
for having illicit relations with his Bhabi, i.e., Jethani of
complainant, Kulwinder Kaur. It is also contended that petitioners
are also ready to return the dowry articles which were allegedly
entrusted to them.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 20.9.2013.

However, in the meantime, petitioners are directed to join the
investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released
on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject
to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 23.08.2013 It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from SI Manmohan Kumar, that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation. Bail application is not opposed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Mukhtiar Singh @Mukhtiara and Sheela Devi is accepted and order dated 23.08.2013 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA )

September 20, 2013.

JUDGE

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s