Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 901 (PNJ)

Yadwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-08-10

AMAR DUTT

body2000
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. The petitioner Yadwinder Singh has filed the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case FIR No. 14, dated 19.1.2000 registered against him at Police Station City Moga. According to the petitioner, in the year 1985, sister Baljit Kaur who was married to one Harpal Mohan Singh Gill, who was migrant of USA. From, the wedlock two daughters were born namely Harsimran Kaur and Sukhminder Kaur. In the year 1988 Harsimran Kaur was admitted in Dalhousie Public School. The relations between the sister of the complainant and her husband became strained on account of heavy use of alcohol by Harpal Mohan. Singh Gill, who had started residing separately. In December 1999, Harsimran Kaur had come to know that her father had secured an ex parte divorce from her mother and had rung up the maternal grandmother at Calcutta. Thereupon the petitioner apprised his sister of the situation and she had asked him to take care of the child. Harsimran Kaur had also written a letter to the S.S.P. Moga indicating that she is staying with her maternal uncle and does not want to go back to her father. Baljeet Kaur had sent a child care authorisation letter from the competent authority from USA vide which the petitioner and her mother have been given the authority to take temporary care of both the children. A case was registered against the petitioner at the behest of Harpal Mohan Singh that his wife has kidnapped Harsimran Kaur from the custody of the father and requested that custody of the child be returned to him. It is in this FIR that the petitioner while seeking interim bail had on 12.5.2000 averred that the petitioner till today has never been directed by any court or any other authority to hand over the custody of the child Harsimran Kaur to any person. 2. On 12.5.2000, this Court while issuing notice had passed the following order : "States that the petitioner has the custody of Harsimran Kaur on the basis of Child Care Authorisation issued by the mother of the child and in view of this, the custody of the child cannot be said to be illegal. Notice to A.G. Punjab for 19.7.2000. 2. On 12.5.2000, this Court while issuing notice had passed the following order : "States that the petitioner has the custody of Harsimran Kaur on the basis of Child Care Authorisation issued by the mother of the child and in view of this, the custody of the child cannot be said to be illegal. Notice to A.G. Punjab for 19.7.2000. In the meantime it is directed the applicant will be admitted to interim bail by the arresting officer on his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction subject to the conditions : (i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer : (iii) that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned. The petitioner is directed to produce all the documents in support of his contention that he is authorised to have the custody of Harsimran Kaur." 3. Today, when the case came up for hearing for confirmation of the interim bail, the same was opposed on the ground that the averments made in para 17 of the petition were wrong to the knowledge of the petitioner inasmuch as on 4.5.2000. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga had on an application moved by the father of Harpal Mohan Singh directed Yadwinder Singh and his co-accused to hand over the custody of minor Harsimran Kaur to her father and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and am of the view that the petitioner had on 12.5.2000 availed the interim relief by asserting that he had taken custody of the child on the basis of child care authorisation issued by the competent Court in U.S.A. at the behest of mother. He has, however, suppressed the information that on 4.5.2000, the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga had directed him to hand over the custody of Harsimaran Kaur to the father. He has, however, suppressed the information that on 4.5.2000, the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga had directed him to hand over the custody of Harsimaran Kaur to the father. In this view of the matter, where the petitioner has suppressed material information regarding the directions of the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga regarding the custody of Harsimran Kaur and had deliberately made a wrong statement does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The petitioner is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.