SURJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Surjan Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.20 dated 19.02.2012, under Sections 406, 419, 427 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ­ IPC), registered at Police Station Titram, District Kaithal. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, petitioner and his other co-accused contacted the complainant Jasmer Singh and his family members and induced the complainant's father for marriage of Seema accused with the complainant. Marriage was performed on 04.03.2011. The complainant party spent Rs.65,000/- on the marriage and also gave gold and silver ornaments. After the marriage, the petitioner and his co-accused have received Rs.65,000/- in cash from the complainant's father. However, the marriage was performed only to dupe the complainant party because on 09.03.2011 (after five days of the marriage), Parveen accused ­ brother of Seema took away Seema from the matrimonial home along with ornaments and valuables and Seema never came back thereafter. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner belongs to the village of the complainant himself and has been falsely implicated. It was contended that the petitioner has no relationship with Seema or her family members.

(2.) LEARNED State counsel, on instructions from ASI Joga Singh, admitted that petitioner belongs to the village of the complainant and is not related to Seema or her family members. It was also stated that pursuant to interim order of this Court, the petitioner has since joined investigation.