PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the statement of Manjit Kaur, FIR No 223 dated 21.12.1998 has been registered under sections 498- A/406/420/494/34 IPC at Police Station West, Sector 11, Chandigarh wherein the following allegations are found :-

(2.) The Complainant-Manjit Kaur married Paramjit Singh (Petitioner) on 13.9.93. After some time, complainant's husband and mother-in-law harassed her asking her to bring money. Her husband and his brother-in-law Talwinder Singh left her forcibly with her parents twice, at Chandigarh. After persuation she was left in her matrimonial home. Thereafter, they started harassing the complainant more and beating her. When petitioner-Paramjit Singh started construction at Patiala in 1997, petitioner and his mother-Amarjit Kaur asked the complainant to bring Rs. 1.00 lac and threatened that if she did not bring, she will be sent out of the house, and Paramjit Singh will be married again. When the father of the complainant expressed inability, they started rebuking and abusing her. After some time, Paramjit Singh started living with his children (through his earlier wife) at Patiala. On 27.7.98, complainant's mother-in-law and father-in-law went abroad leaving complainant alone in the village house, which was not safe, and therefore, the complainant informed her father. On 2.8.98, her father came and was informed by the complainant that Paramjit Singh had married again. Complainant's father requested Paramjit Singh either to live in the village or to take her to Patiala, but the petitioner refused to do so. The complainant's father took her to Chandigarh, but all the jewellery and dowry articles are with Paramjit Singh. The complainant and her father went to Patiala and saw Gurmit Kaur with whom Paramjit Singh had solemnised marriage. Paramjit Singh got himself sterilized after the birth of the third child through his first wife, but this was not disclosed to the complainant.

(3.) The petitioner's request for bail in anticipation of arrest was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. That is why the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 Cr. P.C. for bail in anticipation of arrest.