High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Tarlok Chand vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 20 June 2017 · Citation: (2017) 06 P&H CK 0060

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harinder Singh Sidhu
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-376>Section 376</a>, <a href=1767-498A>Section 498A</a>, <a href=1767-323>Section 323</a>, <a href=1767-506>Section 506</a>, <a href=1767-377>Section 377</a> - Punishment for rape - Husband or rel
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
M-21852 of 2017
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

29 paragraphs · 316 words
1.

This is a petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in

FIR No. 04 dated 04.01.2017 under Sections 377, 376, 498-A, 323, 506 IPC

and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,

registered at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2.

The FIR has been lodged on the complaint of Manisha Devi,

daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The allegations in the FIR are primarily

regarding demand of dowry by the petitioner, his wife and husband of the

complainant. There are also allegations of harassment and beating of the

complainant at the hands of her husband. It is also alleged that the

petitioner, who is father-in-law of the complainant, committed sexual inter-

course with her without her consent.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that marriage of the

complainant with the son of the petitioner was solemnized in the year 2008.

Thereafter, the complainant had filed number of cases against her husband,

including a complaint under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 and 120-B IPC and a

divorce petition under Section 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954.

No allegation was made against the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint and

compromise was effected between the parties. He states that only general

allegations regarding committing sexual inter-course with the complainant

have been levelled against the petitioner. No specific instance has been

mentioned in that regard. He further states that the son of the petitioner

(husband of the complainant) has already been enlarged on bail by the trial

court. The petitioner is in custody since 30.03.2017. Investigation in the

case is complete.

4.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

I deem it appropriate that the petitioner be directed to be enlarged on bail on

his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial

Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, SAS Nagar Mohali. Ordered accordingly.

5.

Petition stands disposed of.