RAM KISHAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these three applications Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {hereafter referred to as 'the Code') for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners/accused (hereafter referred to as 'the accused persons') arise out of the same F.I.R. No. 46 dated 31.3.2003 Under Section 498 A/406, I.P.C. registered at Police Station Balachour, District Nawashehar (Punjab), therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the presentation of these applications, as set out in the applications, are that accused Ashok Kumar and Lakhvinder Kaur were married on 29.1.1998 at Balachour. After the marriage attitude of Lakhvinder Kaur became aggressive and she started pressing accused Ashok Kumar that he must live separately from his parents accused Prakasho Devi and Ram Kishan either at Chandigarh or at Nawashehar. On refusal of accused Ashok Kumar the aggressive attitude of Lakhvinder Kaur hardened and she started harassing, humiliating, insulting and threatening the accused persons, including other members of their family. On 6.6.1998 Lakhvinder Kaur abruptly and without any intimation left her matrimonial home. The accused persons subsequently came to know that she had started living in village Dhanas near Chandigarh. The various attempts made by the accused to bring her back proved futile. To put more pressure on the accused persons Lakhvinder Kaur and her parents got the aforesaid F.I.R. registered thereby making out a false and baseless criminal case against them. The accused are apprehending arrest in the said F.I.R., hence, these applications.

(3.) THE learned Additional Advocate General has raised preliminary submissions and objection that the investigation records, if any, in the case are maintained by the police of a police station outside the local limits of the State of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, the respondent is not in a position to produce the record and that the case having been registered within the State of Punjab the petitions for grant of anticipatory bail are not maintainable in this Court for want of jurisdiction.