IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL. Misc. No.M-17567 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.06.2010 Watna Ram ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. M.S.Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ALOK SINGH, J. Heard. I have perused the record. The main allegation against the petitioner is that despite of the fact that his son was already married, he again arranged marriage of his son alongwith the complainant. As per the FIR, petitioner alongwith son and wife tortured the complainant for the demand of dowry. As per the complainant, petitioner is not refunding dowry/Isteri Dhan given at the time of the marriage. This is not a fit case for the anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22.06.2010 ashish CRL. Misc. No.M-17507 of 2010 *** Present: Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. *** At the request of learned Counsel for the petitioners, list on 28.06.2010. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22.06.2010 ashish CRL. Appeal No.1492-SB of 2010 (O&M) and CRL. Misc. No.31322 of 2010 *** Present: Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the appellant/applicant. *** CRL. Appeal No.1492-SB of 2010 (O&M) Admitted. Lower Court Record be summoned. List in due course. CRL. Misc. No.31322 of 2010 Appellant/applicant is praying for the suspension of sentence of appellant during the pendency of the appeal. Notice of motion for 8.7.2010. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22.06.2010 ashish CRL. Misc. No.M-17570 of 2010 *** Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Heard. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that complainant – Ishu d/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Chopra herself has filed affidavit saying ‘due to misunderstanding the FIR was lodged’. Notice of motion for 6.7.2010. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22.06.2010 ashish CRL. Misc. No.M-17568 of 2010 (O&M) *** Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners. *** Heard. I have perused the record. From the perusal of the record it reveals that suit for recovery of money was decreed against the deceased way back in 28.7.2003 and appeal there from was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court/ADJ, Moga. Thereafter in execution proceedings land of the deceased was auctioned. As per the FIR, deceased committed suicide because of the harassment and insult felt by him due to auction of his land. Abetment is defined under Section 107 IPC. As per the definition of the abetment under Section 107 IPC, harassment can not be categorized under the term of the abetment. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find that petitioner is entitled for the interim relief in FIR No.17 dated 3.5.2010. Notice of motion for 14.7.2010. Meanwhile, in the event of arrest in FIR No.17 dated 3.5.2010, petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22.06.2010 ashish CRL. Misc. No.M-17564 of 2010 *** Present: Mr. Prithi Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. *** Notice of motion for 8.7.2010. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22.06.2010 ashish IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL. Misc. No.M-17562 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.06.2010 Hari Sharan Bhatia ............Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. K.C. Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ALOK SINGH, J. Heard. As per the FIR, petitioner is one of the attesting witness. Sh. Bhagmal father of the complainant was expired on 16.6.1998 while sale deeds in question were executed by putting an imposter in the place of the deceased father Shri Bhagmal on 17.7.2007, 27.7.2007 and 30.1.2008. Whereabouts of imposter can only be known by custodial interrogation of the petitioner. No case of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22.06.2010 ashish CRL. Misc. No.M-17559 of 2010 (O&M) *** Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Heard. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that alleged offences are of year 2002 while complaint was made for the first time on 4.7.2008. Alleged offences are of Section 323/354/506 IPC. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that there is no life threat, hence, offence under Section 506 would be under part one of Section 506. He further states that all the offences are time barred in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C. I have perused the record. I am of the prima-facie view that nothing is to be recovered and custodial interrogation is not required in the present case. Notice of motion for 13.7.2010. As interim measure, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22.06.2010 ashish CRL. Misc. No.M-17558 of 2010 *** Shri (Siri) Niwas and others Vs. Smt. Kela and another Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the petitioners. *** Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on or before 6.7.2010 and shall seek regular bail there from. In view of this, he states that there is no need to press this petition. Present petition is dismissed as not pressed. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22.06.2010 ashish CRL. Misc. No.M-17556 of 2010 (O&M) *** Present: Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner-accused is only witness to the deed in question, he is not beneficiary of the transaction. Notice of motion for 21.7.2010. Meanwhile, if petitioner is arrested, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22.06.2010 ashish Civil Writ Petition No. 11050 of 2010 Present: Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had paid the entire fee and attended all the regular classes and name of the petitioners forwarded to the University for issuance of the Roll Numbers. In further argument he contends that this Court, in identical matters i.e., CWP Nos. 10997 of 2010 and 11011 of 2010, has passed orders dated 14.06.2010 and 17.06.2010, permitting the petitioners therein to appear in the examination. Notice of motion for 20.07.2010. In the meantime, it is provided that the petitioners shall be permitted to appear in the B.ED Examination without conferring any legal right in favour of the petitioners. Respondent shall issue Roll Nos. to the petitioners for appearing in the examination. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall appear in the examination at their own risk subject to the final decision of this writ petition. It is also clarified that this interim order shall not create any equitable or legal right in future of the petitioners. A copy of this order be supllied to the learned counsel for the petitioners under the signatures of the Bench Secretary of this Court. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22.06.2010 Shivani Kaushik Criminal Misc.No.17486-M of 2010(O&M) Present: Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate for Mr. Rajvir Singh, for the petitioner. *** Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays and is granted adjournment. List on 28.06.2010. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22.06.2010 Shivani Kaushik IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. NO. 17585 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 22nd June, 2010 Balwinder ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Satibir Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Undisputedly, the petitioner failed to appear before the learned trial court on 15.04.2010, the date fixed for recording the evidence. Vide order dated 15.04.2010, learned trial court cancelled and forfeited the bail bonds and the personal bonds of the petitioner-accused. In view fo the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the case, it is not a case for anticipatory bail. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek regular bail after putting appearance before the trial court. In the event of filing of the bail application before the trial court, the same shall be disposed of by the trial court in accordance with the law without any delay. Accordingly, the petition stands dispose of . ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22nd June, 2010 Shivani Kaushik Criminal Misc. No. M-17507 of 2010 Present: Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, petition is taken up once again. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh. Request is accepted. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No. 1128 of 2010 Date of decision: 22nd June, 2010 Anil Kumar .......Petitioner Versus S.S.P.Ludhiana and another ........Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Kaushik, Addl.A.G., for the respondent-State. Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that detenue Harish Joshi son of Gurish Joshi has already been released. In view of the fact that detenue has already been released and in view of the fact that the warrant officer appointed by this Court vide his report dated 7.06.2010 reported that detenue was not found under any detention of C.I.A. Staff(I), Ludhiana. Present petition has rendered infructuous. Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal remedy under the law for wrongful dentention as alleged by the petitioner. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22nd June, 2010 Shivani Kaushik IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-15470 of 2010 Date of decision: 22nd June, 2010 Sonu Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Kaushik, Addl.A.G., for the respondent-State. Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and is permitted to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22nd June, 2010 Shivani Kaushik Criminal Misc. No. M-17086 of 2010 Present: Mr. Lal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks adjournment. Vide order dated 8.06.2010, interim bail was granted to the petitioner. Matter was adjourned yesterday at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. Adjournment is granted. However, order dated 8.06.2010 is hereby vacated. List on 7.06.2010. ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE 22nd June, 2010 Shivani Kaushik