The High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 20 Dec 2010
- Bench
- JASWANT SINGH
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C is for grant of anticipatory/pre arrest bail on behalf of husband in case FIR No.29 dated 21.3.2010 under Sections 498-A/406/506 IPC, P.S Sri Hargobindpur, District Gurdaspur. Marriage between the complainant-wife Navneet Kaur and the petitioner was solemnized on 21.10.2004 and they have four years old daughter. Allegations are that the wife has been turned out of her matrimonial home on 9.1.2010 on account of unsatisfied demand for dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the process for an amicable settlement of the matrimonial dispute between the parties has failed. He further submits that as on now the petitioner has joined investigation and the challan in the present case has been submitted. He further submits that the entire dowry articles have been returned. Learned state counsel, on instructions from ASI Narender Singh, states that the petitioner has joined investigation, however, some of Crl.M.No.13822-M of 2010 #2# the dowry articles remain to be recovered. In view of the challan having been presented, interim protection/pre arrest bail granted vide order dated 12.5.2010 is made absolute. Petition stands disposed of. December 20, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 20 Dec 2010. The bench was JASWANT SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.