Saturday, July 12, 2014

hubby's dad 2 pay prearrest bail ransom 7lakhs EVEN aftr marriage dissolved! Wife asking 20lakhs! Also, elders NOT to leave India as IF they are some mafia !!

* Hubby's father is the petitioner in this case
* He is seeking pre arrest bail
* Marriage dissolved by Court of District Judge, Amritsar on 17.3.2014
* Bail hearing on May 27th 2014, i.e. AFTER dissolution of marriage
* Hubby & co ready to pay ransom of Rs 12 Lakhs
* Wife and co asking for 20 Lakhs !!
* So it is very clear that the issue is MONEY ...MONEY AND MONEY
* Court orders hubby's father to pay Rs 7 Lakhs and orders him NOT to leave country

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sawinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 May, 2014

CRM-M-5419-2013 (O&M)


CRM-M-5419-2013 (O&M).

Decided on: May 27, 2014.

Sawinder Singh ..... Petitioner(s)


State of Punjab ..... Respondent(s)


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT Mr.Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr.N.S.Dandiwal, Advocate, for the complainant. M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL). ; ;

Petitioner is father-in-law of complainant Manpreet Kaur who had been maltreated by the son of the petitioner Jasjit Singh and other family members.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that son of the petitioner was in Australia who on proposal of marriage by the brothers and brother-in-law of the complainant, had come to India for marriage for a short duration. On account of complainant having not been able to secure VISA after marriage, she has lodged a false complaint. It has been informed that as a matter of fact the marriage of the son of the petitioner with the complainant has been dissolved by Court of District Judge, Amritsar on 17.3.2014. ; ;

State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for pre-arrest bail contending that recovery of the dowry articles which includes jewellery weighing 35 Tolas is yet to be effected. The son of the petitioner being a proclaimed offender, the relief of pre-arrest bail should not be granted to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that marriage having been dissolved, the petitioner being father of Jasjit Singh is ready to compensate the complainant. He has offered a sum of Rs.12 lacs for amicably resolving the dispute despite the fact that the allegation of the complainant is that a sum of Rs.20 lacs was spent on the marriage ceremony. ; ;

Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the matter could have been settled in case a sum of Rs.20 lacs is paid. In view of above said circumstances, *it appears that the litigation between the complainant and her husband and families on both sides can be amicably resolved on payment of lump sum alimony* to the complainant and the costs of articles which are yet to be recovered.

Since an agreeable figure could not be arrived at between the parties, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to allow this application for pre-arrest bail on following conditions: - (i) That the petitioner will be released on bail in case of his arrest subject to the condition that he will join investigating as and when required and will not tamper with the evidence or hamper investigation in any manner; (ii) That he will pay a sum of Rs.7 lacs to the complainant in the shape of bank draft in the name of complainant by handing over the same to the Investigating Officer within a period of two months. The said amount will be treated as part payment on account of costs of dowry articles alleged to be recoverable from the petitioner and others and part payment towards final settlement which is yet to be arrived at; (iii) That the petitioner will not leave India without the permission of the Court. ; ;

It is made clear that in case of non- compliance of any of the above said directions, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed.



May 27, 2014.

rka ; ;


FOLLOW on twitter or on wordpress or  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist