KISHORE KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Kishore Kumar, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B, 313, 323, 406, 498 -A and 506, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.44, dated 10.04.2014, registered at Police Station, Phase VIII, District S.A.S.Nagar.

(2.) LEARNED counsel contends that the marriage of the petitioner with Jasmeet Kaur (informant) was solemnized on 14.02.2014 and thereafter, they lived together hardly for 15 -20 days; due to temperamental differences, the informant left the house of the petitioner and started residing at S.A.S.Nagar; to put pressure on the petitioner, the impugned FIR was registered on 10.04.2014 at Police Station, Phase VIII, S.A.S.Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B, 313, 323, 406, 498 -A and 506, IPC, in which all the adult members of the family of the petitioner were nominated as accused; at the time of lodging of the impugned FIR, there was not an iota of word that informant had ever conceived or suffered miscarriage; to make the case more serious and with a motive that the petitioner and his coaccused are not granted bail, the allegations with regard to miscarriage of the informant on account of heating by the petitioner was levelled on 15.11.2014 and as such, Section 313, IPC, was added. He further pointed that earlier the petitioner had filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court which was withdrawn and the petitioner himself surrendered before learned Area Judicial Magistrate on 07.11.2014 and since then he is behind the bars. After completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) has been presented on 31.01.2015 and as such, further incarceration of the petitioner is not of worth. He also pointed out that except the bald statement of the informant, there is no medical opinion that the informant had ever conceived or suffered miscarriage. He further submits that after marriage, the informant had joined the company of her husband at Jalandhar and the alleged incidents of demand of dowry and maltreatment had occurred at Jalandhar and as such, the police of S.A.S.Nagar had no jurisdiction to register and investigate the case in hand.

(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the State had very fairly conceded that the petitioner was behind the bars and after completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) had been presented before learned Area Judicial Magistrate. He, however, opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the premise that the allegations against him were of serious in nature. Jasmeet Kaur (informant) along with her mother Ravinder Kaur were present in the Court and they had also opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the premise that if the bail was granted to the petitioner, in that eventuality, he might extend threats to the witnesses and would not allow the trial to proceed.