Delhi High Court
Harpal Singh And Others vs The State on 31 July, 2008
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Application No.2087/2007
% Date of decision : 31.07.2008
Harpal Singh and Others ....... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Naveen Saxena, Advocate.
Versus
The State ......... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Sharma, APP for the State.
Mr.D. Hasija, Advocate for the
complainant.
CORAM :-
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioners, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and
husband of complainant, Smt. Rekha, seeks anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.
The petitioners contended that the complaint was filed as a
counter blast to the petition under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act
registered as HMA No.486/2006 filed by the petitioner No.3 for
declaring his alleged marriage with the complainant, Smt.Rekha, as
null and void on the ground that at the time of marriage, complainant
was already married to Shri Satbir Singh and the marriage between the
complainant and Shri Satbir Singh were not dissolved by a decree of
divorce. The petition under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed
by the petitioner No.3 on 28th August, 2006 and the complaint was filed
on 31st October, 2006, after filing of the petition by petitioner No.3
under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for declaring the said
marriage as null and void.
The petitioners contended that the complainant left the house on
her own on 10th/11th June, 2006 after the petitioners came to know
that the complainant was already married with Shri Satbir Singh.
It is asserted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that
the complainant's application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 for pendente lite maintenance was dismissed on the ground that
the marriage of the complainant with Shri Satbir Singh had not been
legally dissolved and her plea that her marriage with Shri Satbir Singh
was dissolved through Panchayat by entering into an
agreement/samjhota had no legally sanctity. Learned counsel for the
petitioners also contend that the petition filed by the petitioner No.3
under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has since been allowed
and the alleged marriage has been declared to be null and void and no
appeal has been filed against the decree declaring the alleged marriage
between the petitioner No.3 and the complainant as null and void.
The petitioners have contended that the complainant had
harassed and pressurized her husband, Satbir Singh, and his family
members demanding her istridhan and cash amount. The petitioner
No.3 is stated to be the only son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who are
senior citizens and ailing. It is contended that the petitioners are
respectable persons having roots in the society and are not previous
convicts in any other case and have permanent residence at Delhi and
they will abide by any terms and conditions as may be imposed by the
Court.
Learned counsel for the complainant has very vociferously
contended that the marriage was dissolved by agreement/samjhota by
the Panjchayat and, therefore, the marriage between the complainant
and petitioner No.3 is valid. Learned counsel is, however, unable to
show any provision of the Hindu Marriage Act under which the
marriage between the parties can be dissolved by the alleged
agreement/samjhota entered between the parties before the alleged
Panchayat. Since the marriage between petitioner No.3 and
complainant has already been declared as null and void and no appeal
has been filed, it cannot be inferred that there was marriage between
the parties.
In the circumstances, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to
the petitioners. The Petitioners were granted interim anticipatory bail
by order 26th September, 2007, subject to furnishing personal bonds in
the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the order of
interim bail is confirmed. In case of arrest, the petitioners be released
on bail on their furnishing a personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/-
each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
investigating/arresting officer. The petitioners shall take part in the
investigations as and when directed and they should not try to
influence the witness in any manner.
The petition is disposed of. Dasti.
July 31, 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'
