Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Manjit Kaur - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
C.R.M.M. No. 25673 of 2021
Decided On : 07-07-2021
Anticipatory Bail - Matrimonial Dispute - The court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving serious allegations of physical violence resulting in abortion, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the potential obstruction of the investigation process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of Sections 406, 498-A, 316, 323 and 120-B IPC, related to a matrimonial dispute and physical violence resulting in abortion.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined the grant of anticipatory bail, citing the serious nature of the allegations and the potential obstruction of the investigation process.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the serious allegations against her.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that due to the serious nature of the allegations and the potential obstruction of the investigation process, the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail.
JUDGMENT
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - Through the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 175 dated 22.09.2020 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 316, 323 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Division No. 1, District Jalandhar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is a matrimonial dispute between the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The daughter-in-law of the petitioner has left her matrimonial home of her own and the dispute was settled several times at Women Police Station but she has never honoured the settlement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Mandeep Kaur has been granted interim bail and seeks the grant of similar relief on the ground of parity. Notice of motion.
4. On the asking of this Court, Mr. Avtar Singh Sandhu, Addl. AG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
5. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for bail, submits that earlier the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was declined on merits, vide order dated 15.12.2020 passed by this Court. He further submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and there is an apprehension that in case, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, every effort may be made by her to throttle the investigation process. It is a case, in which, there are specific allegations against the petitioner that she had given fist blows on the abdomen of the complainant, which resulted into the abortion of the foetus.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to grant her the concession of anticipatory bail.
9. Dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
