JASWINDER SINGH JARYAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JASWINDER Singh Jaryal and his mother Nirmal Kumari, the petitioners herein are seeking anticipatory bail in a case FIR No. 18 dated 5.2.2003 under sections 498-A and 406 IPC registered in Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. It may be mentioned here that the co-accused of the present petitioners namely Poonam Kumari, Vijay Rana, Sushil Kumari and Davinder Singh are on regular bail.

(2.) JASWINDER Singh is the husband of Tejinder Kaur complainant whereas Nirmal Kumari is the mother-in-law. I need not go into detailed discussion so far as the facts of the present case are concerned. The only controversy before this Court is as to whether the present application under section 438 Cr.P.C. in the present form in maintainable or not.

(3.) ON the same day another order Annexure P/4 was also passed in the same terms on a separate application moved by petitioner No. 2 and Poonam Kumari, her daughter. Thereafter the present two petitioners alongwith Poonam Kumari and one Vijay Rana moved an application for regular bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur. It is worth mentioning here that a separate application was also moved by their co-accused namely, Sushil Kumari and Davinder Singh for the same relief and both the applications for regular bail were decided vide Annexure P/5 dated 29.3.2003 in which Poonam Kumari, Vijaya Rana, Sushil Kumari and Davinder Singh were ordered to be released on regular bail whereas the bail application of the present petitioners was dismissed. The present petitioners then moved another application for regular bail before Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and the same has been dismissed vide Annexure P/6 dated 8.4.03. Before proceeding further I may mention here that in the heading of the typed copy of Annexure P/6, the line "application for regular bail" is missing whereas in the certified copy it is mentioned. It appears that it skipped the notice of the Registry and the concerned official just had a cursory glance on the typed copy (Annexure P/6) and put up the case for disposal. Otherwise, the Registry might have raised the objection on the maintainability of the present petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. Any how, I do not intend to comment further on it.