Monday, August 11, 2014

Divorced hubby marries again & hit by 498a !! Parents run for bail !! All women NOT like that series :-)



* Petitioners seek anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them along with their son
* Sections 494, 498-A, 420, 493 and 120-B IPC, @ Station Women Cell City, Amritsar
* Marriage of Gaurav Sood (son of the petitioners) was initially solemnized on 28.02.2006 with Priyanka. However, their marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce dated 18.12.2007 ... Subsequently Gaurav Sood performed second marriage with complainant Jasmeet Kaur (for brevity 'the complainant') on 12.02.2010. !!!!
*   ........... rest is history !!!!

*****************************************************


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 23547 of 2014

Date of decision : 30.07.2014

Sudesh Khullar @ Preety Sood and another ...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab  ..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Deepak Garg, AAG, Punjab for the State.

Mrs. Ishma Randhawa, Advocate for the complainant.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

****

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

Petitioners-Sudesh Khullar @ Preety Sood and her husband Prabalvir Sood (parents in-law), have preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them along with their son and main accused Gaurav Sood (husband) of complainant-Jasmeet Kaur, vide FIR No. 26 dated 21.09.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 494, 498-A, 420, 493 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Women Cell City, Amritsar.

2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on July 17, 2014:-

"Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that marriage of Gaurav Sood (son of the petitioners) was initially solemnized on 28.02.2006 with Priyanka. However, their marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure P-2). The argument is that subsequently Gaurav Sood performed the second marriage with complainant Jasmeet Kaur (for brevity 'the complainant') on 12.02.2010. The argument is that although no indicated offences are made out against them, even then the petitioners, who are (parents-in-law) of the complainant, have been falsely implicated in this case in order to wreak vengeance. No specific allegations or overt-act or cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry, are assigned to the petitioners.

Heard.

Issue notice of motion to the respondent. At this stage, Ms. Amarjit Khurana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on behalf of the State & Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Advocate, on behalf of complainant, appear, accept notices and seek time to argue the matter.

Adjourned to 30.07.2014 for arguments, at the request of State/complainant counsel.

Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction."


5. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Rajinder Pal Singh, learned State counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. Moreover, petitioners are parents in-law. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners, by virtue of indicated order by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

7. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for pre-arrest bail. At the same time, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this Court.

30.07.2014

(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
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.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************



*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
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