Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 55 (PNJ)

Kamaljit Bansal v. State of Haryana

2018-01-09

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. (Oral):- The petitioner prays for grant of regular bail under Section439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in FIRNo.207 dated 16.03.2017, for offence punishable under Sections 419,420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’)registered at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa. 2. The anticipatory bail application filed by the petitionervide CRM-M No.17279 of 2017 was dismissed on 12.07.2017. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitionerhas surrendered on 12.10.2017 and thereafter, the police has completedthe investigation and submitted the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Itis further submitted that the petitioner is no more required for anyfurther custodial interrogation. It is also submitted by counsel for thepetitioner that all the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate andit will take long time in conclusion of the trial as the prosecutionevidence is yet to start. 4. As per the allegations in the FIR which was got registeredby one Bakshish Singh, Advocate, he was informed that the petitionerhas obtained a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent underSection 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of AdditionalDistrict Judge, Sirsa by impersonating some lady in place of his wife –Reema Rani. The complainant – Bakshish Singh, Advocate was acounsel in the said proceedings. It is further alleged in the FIR thatwhen he met the abovesaid Reema Rani, he was surprised to find outthat she is not the lady who had accompanied the petitioner – KamaljitBansal to his office and appeared in the Court for making the statement.It is, thus, alleged that by way of impersonation, the petitioner hasobtained a decree of divorce against the victim – Reema Rani byproducing some other lady posing herself as his wife. 5. Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI MahenderSingh, has not disputed the factual position but opposed the prayer forbail. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the victim has also opposedthe prayer for bail on the ground that the signatures of the victimnamely Reema Rani, one Priyanka Aggarwal and the petitioner havebeen sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban forcomparison and the report is still awaited. 7. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the victim has also opposedthe prayer for bail on the ground that the signatures of the victimnamely Reema Rani, one Priyanka Aggarwal and the petitioner havebeen sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban forcomparison and the report is still awaited. 7. Without commenting anything on merits of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since12.10.2017; the investigation has been completed and the report underSection 173 Cr.P.C. has also been submitted on 05.12.2017; charges areyet to be framed against the petitioner; offences are triable by the Courtof Magistrate; the prosecution evidence is yet to start and conclusion ofthe trial will take long time, the present petition is allowed and thepetitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishingbail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation ofbail, if the petitioner is found involved misusing the concession of bail,in any manner.