High CourtsSingle Bench

Baldev Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 7 March 2011 · Citation: (2011) 03 P&H CK 0085

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438, 438(2) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 34, 498A, 506
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-763 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 291 words

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present petition has been filed u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner in case FIR No. 98 dated 13.12.2010 registered at Police Station Sehna, District Barnala under Sections 498-A/506/34 IPC.

2.

A Coordinate Bench, on January 12, 2011 had passed the following order:

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner inter alia contends that Baldev Singh (Petitioner) is the father-in-law of Amarjit Kaur-complainant and her sister Simarjit Kaur. Both the sisters are married to the sons of the Petitioner namely Gurdeep Singh and Jagsir Singh. The marriage between the sisters and the sons of the Petitioner was solemnized about 15 years earlier to the registration of FIR. It is submitted that general allegations regarding demand for dowry have been made. It is also submitted that the Petitioner did not turn out the two sisters from their matrimonial home and they are welcome to stay there.

Notice of motion for 7.3.2011.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the Petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The Petitioner shall, however, join investigation as and when called and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438(2) Code of Criminal Procedure

3.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from Harbhajan Singh ASI, Police Station Sehna, has stated that in pursuance of the order reproduced above, Petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation by the investigating agency.

4.

In view of the statement made by Counsel for the State, order dated January 12, 2011 passed by a Coordinate Bench, whereby interim bail was granted to the Petitioner, is hereby affirmed and the present petition stands disposed of accordingly.