caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Jaskaran Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 25 April, 2017Author: S Nazeer
Bench: J. Chelameswar, S. Abdul Nazeer
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 785 OF 2017
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9288 of 2016]
JASKARAN SINGH …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1 Leave granted.
2 This appeal is directed against the order dated 29th September, 2016
in Crl. Misc. No.M-34630 of 2016 whereby the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana has dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the
appellant in a case registered vide FIR No. 109 of 2016 dated 26th July,
2016 under Sections 498A/494/406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in
Police Station Dayalpura, District Bathinda, Punjab. The second respondent
in her complaint has alleged that her husband, the appellant herein, had
married Karamveer Kaur during the subsistence of her marriage. There are
allegations of cruelty, harassment, fraud and the threats being given by
the appellant.
3 The contention of the appellant is that he has never married
Karamveer Kaur and that the allegation is false and frivolous.
4 In order to substantiate marriage of the appellant with Karamveer
Kaur, respondent No.2 has produced an application filed by Karamveer Kaur
bearing No. CRM-M-28765 of 2016 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. Taking into consideration this case filed by Karamveer Kaur against
the appellant, the High Court rejected the application of the appellant
seeking anticipatory bail.
5 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
6 It is evident that the petition filed by Karamveer Kaur under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant has been withdrawn on
24th February, 2016. The High Court has not taken into consideration the
withdrawal of this petition. It is also evident that the second respondent
is residing in the matrimonial home with the mother of the appellant. There
are no criminal antecedents against the appellant except the present case.
We are of the view that the High Court is not justified in rejecting the
application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail.
7 Therefore, the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal is
hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. The application filed by the
appellant for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed.
8 In the event of arrest of the appellant in the aforesaid case, he
shall be released on bail by making deposit of Rs. 25,000/- in cash and
also subject to condition that the appellant shall cooperate with the
investigation at all further stages.
…………………………………J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
…………………………………J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
New Delhi;
April 25, 2017.
Comments