HUKAM CHAND BANSAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of above mentioned two petitions i.e. CRM-M -14342-2017 and CRM-M -17279-2017 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.207 dated 16.3.2017 under Sections 120- B, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Sirsa City, District Sirsa. The first petition has been filed by Hukam Chand Bansal, father-in-law of the respondent-complainant and the second petition is filed by Kamaljit Bansal, husband of complainant-Reema Rani.

(2.) As per the averments made in the FIR registered by Bakshish Singh Thind, Advocate (Annexure P1), on 9.3.2017, some Advocates along with other persons approached him and informed that co-accused-Kamaljit Bansal had taken a decree of divorce by mututal consent from the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sirsa by producing some other lady in place of his wife. It is further averred in the FIR that he was surprised to see that Reema Rani, complainant as she was not the girl, who had accompanied Kamaljit Bansal and the girl who had met him on that day never came to his Office or appeared in the Court. It was even alleged that by way of impersonation, Kamaljit Bansal had obtained a decree of divorce against complainant-Reema Rani by producing some other lady in place of his wife.

(3.) So far as anticipatory bail application of Kamaljit Bansal, husband of Reema Rani-complainant is concerned, there are direct allegations of impersonation and his custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, I find no ground for granting anticipatory bail to Kamaljit Bansal and CRM-M -17279-2017 is dismissed.