Mahesh Kumar vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner Mahesh Kumar son of Ram Krishan has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C., in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No. 112 dated 18.5.2013, for the commission of offences punishable u/ss. 420 and 376 IPC by the police of Police Station City Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.) passed the following order on 10.3.2014:-

Reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State is taken on record. Copy of the same has been given to the other side.

Heard.

It is submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that the Prosecutrix has made a statement before the police that she has married the petitioner and is not willing to prosecute him. It is also stated in the statement Annexure R2 appended with the reply that the petitioner married to prosecutrix on 4.3.2014 and both of them are living as husband and wife. Along with the reply, respondent-State has also appended an affidavit stated to have been sworn by the petitioner to confirm that he has solemnized marriage with prosecutrix and as such the prosecutrix and children born out of the wedlock, shall be entitled to all the rights available to a Hindu wife and legitimate children. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, while disputing the correctness of the aforestated statement of the prosecutrix and affidavit of the petitioner, prays for an adjournment to verify the correctness of these documents.

Adjourned to 1.4.2014.

At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurnam Singh, has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix. Moreover, the petitioner and complainant are stated to be residing together as husband and wife. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. The final conclusion of trial would naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as indicated here-in-before and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition is hereby accepted. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction, subject to conditions contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. At the same time, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant context in this Court.