Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 November, 2022
CRM-41469-2022, CRM-41470-2022 IN/AND CRM-M-13508-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(109) CRM-41469-2022, CRM-41470-2022
IN/AND CRM-M-13508-2022
Date of decision: 11.11.2022
Lakhwinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Nikhil Batta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S.Grewal, DAG, Punjab.
Ms. R.K.Grewal, Advocate for the complainant.
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
CRM-41470-2022
Noticing the prayer made in the application, it is allowed.
Hearing of the main case is preponed from 05.12.2022 to today
and it is ordered to be taken on Board.
CRM-41469-2022
Application is allowed as prayed for.
OPD Slip dated 26.10.2022 issued by Government Rajindra Hospital,
Patiala, is taken on record as Annexure P-10.
CRM-M-13508-2022
Instant petition has been filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C., for grant of
regular bail in FIR No.11 dated 05.03.2021, registered for offences under
Sections 406, 498-A, 448, IPC, however, Section 201, IPC, was added, later
on, at Police Station Women, Patiala, District Patiala, Annexure P-1.
1 of 3
CRM-41469-2022, CRM-41470-2022 IN/AND CRM-M-13508-2022 -2-
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that FIR is an
outcome of a matrimonial dispute and the petitioner-husband is in custody
since 23.02.2022. He submits that although besides allegations of
entrustment of dowry articles, harassment and cruelty, petitioner is alleged
to have trespassed the complainant's house, but she has already taken back
its possession. He submits that marriage has been dissolved by ex-parte
judgment and decree dated 02.07.2022, Annexure P-9. It is his argument
that on conclusion of investigation, challan has been presented and charge
has been framed, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.
Reference has been made to OPD slip, Annexure P-10, to urge that
petitioner's middle aged mother requires immediate medical attention.
Per contra, State counsel, upon instructions from HC, Sanjeev
Kumar, submits that out of 34 prosecution witnesses, none has been
examined. He is assisted by counsel for the complainant.
I have considered the submissions made.
This court is of the view that a liberal approach has to be
adopted while considering petitions seeking post-arrest bail in matrimonial
matters arising out of proceedings initiated under Section 406 and 498-A,
IPC. In such matters, most of the times, trivial disputes are either blown out
of proportion or the allegations levelled appear far from truth. It has been
observed that majority of these discords end up in a settlement and keeping
a spouse or a relative in detention for months together aggravates the
bitterness and creates hurdles in bringing about an amicable compromise.
Noticing the nature of allegations levelled against the
2 of 3
CRM-41469-2022, CRM-41470-2022 IN/AND CRM-M-13508-2022 -3-
petitioner, ailment of his mother, length of custody, stage of trial as well as
the divorce between the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Without adverting to the merits or demerits of the arguments
addressed by counsel for the parties, petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of trial, on furnishing
adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Area Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate concerned.
It is clarified that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed
to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
11.11.2022
Pardeep
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
3 of 3
