TEJINDER PAL BEDI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 12.10.2000 when this matter came up for hearing, the arrest of the petitioner was stayed subject to his joining investigation as and when required. At that stage, Mr. Kalra, on instructions from his client had made certain statements which have now been found to be factually not correct. It was stated that the application for loan was made by the wife of the petitioner without the knowledge of the petitioner. It was also stated that the false affidavits have been filed again by the wife of the petitioner without his knowledge. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions, this Court was persuaded to stay arrest of the petitioner. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has been living separately from his wife since the year 1997. Today, in order to support the case of the petitioner, Mr. Kalra has sought to rely on a DDR which is recorded with the police. On 24.7.1997, in the DDR, the petitioner had made a grievance that his wife has deserted him. He apprehends that his wife may file a false case against him on the ground that he had been demanding dowry.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has brought to the notice of this Court some facts which would show that the petitioner and his wife are very much together and are prosecuting the case together. Learned State counsel has brought to the notice of the Court photostat copy of the power of attorney dated 18.9.2000 whereby the petitioner and his wife have engaged a counsel to represent them in the trial Court. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court photostat copy of the ration card which has been verified on 14.10.1999. Thereafter, the learned counsel has referred to a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by one Umesh Jain, District Co-ordinator. In this statement, it has been stated that the application regarding loan of Anjali Bedi, wife of the petitioner was forwarded to him on 26.10.1999, after being recommended by the DIC Ludhiana. On 24.10.1999, this application was forwarded along with letter to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana. This was done on the basis of the request which has been made by the petitioner to the effect that the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ludhiana has agreed to sanction the loan to the wife of the petitioner. On 25.11.1999, petitioner went to Omesh Jain with a request that the case be sent to Tagore Nagar Branch.

(3.) IN view of the above, petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.