CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Gina Devi and Another vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 20 April 2009 · Citation: (2009) 04 P&H CK 0121

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 173, 438, 438(2) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307, 323, 342, 406, 498A
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

11 paragraphs · 344 words

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present petition has been preferred u/s 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 11 dated 1.2.2009 registered at Police Station Siwani, under Sections 307, 498-A, 323, 342, 406 & 506 IPC.

2.

On 26.3.2009, this Court had passed the following order:

Counsel has submitted that petitioner No. 1 is mother-in-law, whereas petitioner No. 2 is younger brother of husband of the complainant. Counsel has further submitted that this is a matrimonial dispute. It has been stated that there is no medical evidence or opinion to corroborate the allegations falling within the ambit of Section 307 IPC.

Issue notice of motion for 15th April 2009.

In the event of arrest, petitioners will be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. However, petitioners will join investigation as and when called for. Petitioners will abide by the conditions specified u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

3.

Thereafter, counsel for the complainant made a prayer that efforts should be made to resolve the dispute amicably.

4.

Today, counsel for the parties have made efforts to resolve the dispute amicably but the same could not fructify.

5.

Mr. Mor, on instructions from Ram Mehar, Inspector, has stated that Suresh, husband of the complainant and Balbir Singh, father-in-law were arrested. After period of their police remand was over, they were released on regular bail. It is further submitted that other four accused have obtained anticipatory bail. Mr. Mor has further stated that the petitioners have joined investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required.

6.

Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the rope which was used to strangulate the complainant has not been recovered.

7.

Since the Investigating Agency do not require custodial interrogation of the petitioners, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 26.3.2009 is affirmed till filing of the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. On submission of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. petitioners shall furnish regular bail-bonds to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

8.

With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off.