Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1222 (PNJ)

Mayank Chaudhary v. State of Haryana

2015-07-07

RAMENDRA JAIN, S.S.SARON

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant-appellant No.1-Mayank Chaudhary seeking interim bail for two weeks i.e. from 20.07.2015 to 03.08.2015, so as to enable him to solemnize his marriage with Ms.Komal at Arya Samaj Mandir, G.K.II, New Delhi and also for enabling him to sign certain papers in respect of the bank account of his father namely Sh. Anil Chaudhary with Canara Bank and various other activities like relinquishing his share in the commercial properties of his father. 3. Affidavit of Inspector Sandeep Kumar, SHO, Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon has been filed. It is stated that the facts regarding marriage of the applicant-appellant No.1-Mayank Chaudhary was verified by ASI Bijender, Police Station Palam Vihar from the brother of the applicantappellant No.1 namely Saurabh Choudhary who stated that the marriage of his brother with Ms. Komal was fixed for 25.07.2015 and the reception is scheduled to be held for the same day at Park View Residency Sector-3, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. It is stated that only mother of the bride and family of the applicant-appellant No.1-Mayank Chaudhary CRM No.18015 of 2015 in CRA No.D-820-DB of 2015 -2- know about the marriage and no cards have been distributed to the neighbours. Statement of Sh.Mausam Kumar, Manager of Park View Residency, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon was recorded by ASI Bijender, Police Station Palam Vihar who stated that the booking for the marriage had been made by Sh. Saurabh Choudhary and his sister Tarika for reception at 8 p.m. on 25.07.2015. Ms. Vidya Devi, mother of the bride also confirmed the marriage of her daughter. However, no neighbours knew about the scheduled marriage and reception. Ms. Komal Devi also made a statement and she confirmed her marriage with Mayank Chaudhary (applicant-appellant No.1) 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the applicant-appellant No.1 and submitted that the marriage though is stated to be fixed, but the applicantappellant No.1-Mayank Chaudhary is not liable to be released on interim bail at this stage as he has been convicted only on 24.04.2015; besides, the neighbours do not know about the marriage and it may merely be a ploy to escape. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. 6. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. 6. It may be noticed that according to the affidavit of Inspector Sandeep Kumar, SHO, Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, the marriage of the applicant-appellant CRM No.18015 of 2015 in CRA No.D-820-DB of 2015 -3- No.1-Mayank Chaudhary with Ms.Komal is scheduled to be solemnized on 25.07.2015. This has been confirmed by the brother and sister of the applicant-appellant no.1-Mayank Chaudhary, besides, the mother of the bride herself as well as the bride Ms.Komal. 7. The application for interim bail has been filed as the applicant-appellant No.1-Mayank Chaudhary is not entitled for temporary release on parole in view of the provisions of Rule 4(1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007 which provides that a prisoner shall be entitled to apply for parole only after he has completed one year of his imprisonment after conviction and has earned his first annual good conduct remission under the Act i.e. the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. The applicantappellant No.1 indeed does not fulfil the said condition. However, the same would not be a bar for this Court to grant interim bail. 8. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that two FIRs under Section 42 of the Prisons Act stands registered against the applicant-appellant No.1-Mayank Chaudhary, besides, a civil suit titled ‘Tarika Chaudhary Vs Mayank Chaudhary’ is also pending. 9. It may be noticed that the applicant-appellant No.1-Mayank Chaudhary has undergone his imprisonment CRM No.18015 of 2015 in CRA No.D-820-DB of 2015 -4- in the two FIRs. As regards the civil suit, it is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant No.1-Mayank Chaudhary that the applicant-appellant No.1-Mayank Chaudhary has transferred his share in a shop of his father in favour of his sister Tarika Chaudhary (plaintiff in the civil suit) and the civil suit has since been decided. 10. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant-appellant No.1-Mayank Chaudhary for a period of two weeks as prayed for, so as to enable him to solemnize his marriage, besides, carry out his other tasks of settling the bank accounts etc. 11. 10. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant-appellant No.1-Mayank Chaudhary for a period of two weeks as prayed for, so as to enable him to solemnize his marriage, besides, carry out his other tasks of settling the bank accounts etc. 11. Accordingly, criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant appellant No.1-Mayank Chaudhary shall remain suspended for a period of two weeks from 20.07.2015 to 03.08.2015 on his furnishing personal bond and substantial surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. ————————