Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 117 (PNJ)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

2013-02-05

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J. (Oral) - Rajesh Kumar, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.222 dated 6.11.2012 at Police Station, City, Gurdaspur, for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 2. While issuing notice of motion in this petition, the following submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed vide the order dated 11.12.2012:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner with Ekta, the complainant was solemnized in March 2011. According to him, thereafter she lodged a report which was enquired into by the police and was found to be false. According to him, then compromise was entered between the parties under which she was kept separately at village Taragarh and there also she stayed for 25 days and then left the house. According to him, the complainant insisted upon the petitioner to start living at her parental home. According to him, when she left the petitioner’s place, he filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and as a counter-blast to the same, this false case has been got registered.” 3. It is added thereto that the petitioner has joined the investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is husband of the complainant. He, however, admits that petitioner has joined the investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that even after the compromise, when the petitioner and the complainant started living at Taragarh, at the intervention of mother-in-law of the complainant, the petitioner had caught hold of the neck of the complainant and had given her beating. 6. The enquiry report of the Superintendent of Police shows that this is not a dispute having the colour of a case under Section 498-A IPC. According to the Superintendent of Police, this is a dispute between husband and wife which is just a normal wear and tear between them. 7. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the enquiry report, I find the petitioner to be entitled to be released on bail. Hence the petition is allowed. Order dated 11.12.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.