Tejinder Kaur vs State of Punjab

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Tejinder Kaur, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 13 dated 19.6.2012 at Police Station Women Cell, Patiala, for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498 -IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the complainant Inderbir Kaur. According to him, the allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are false. He further submits that the petitioner had been living separately from Indervir Kaur and her husband and she had no interference in their matrimonial relations. He further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and has cooperated with the same. Lastly, he submits that the husband of the complainant has already been arrested and has been released on regular bail.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, admits that the petitioner has joined the investigation. According to him, some of the dowry articles have been recovered and some are yet to be recovered.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits with reference to Annexure P-3 that in a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the husband is giving his address which is the address of the petitioner and it shows that they had been residing together. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that the bail application of maternal uncle of Sukhwinder Singh had been dismissed by this court observing that he is having interference in the matrimonial life of the complainant. It is a fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation. It is further a fact that the husband of complainant has already been arrested and released on regular bail. Some of the dowry articles are said to have been recovered while some are not. The trial court after taking evidence would see as to what were the dowry articles given in the marriage and what were not. It is a fact that Sukhwinder Singh filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in which he gave the address of the petitioner as his address, but that would not mean that he and his mother are residing at the same place while he was cohabiting with Indervir Kaur, i.e. before Sukhwinder Singh and Indervir Kaur had fallen apart. Looking to all these circumstances, but without commenting on the merits of the case, I find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated 02.11.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.