High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sube Singh vs State Of Haryana on 15 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sube Singh vs State Of Haryana on 15 July, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH




                         Criminal Misc. No. M-30661 of 2008
                         Date of decision : July 15, 2009


Sube Singh
                                               ....Petitioner
                         versus

State of Haryana
                                               ....Respondent


Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal


Present :    Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate with
             Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner

             Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana with
             Mr. VK Bagri, Advocate, for the complainant


L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions i.e.

Criminal Misc. No. M-30661 of 2008 filed by Sube Singh and Criminal

Misc. No. M-10411 of 2009 filed by Sahi Ram, both seeking bail in case

FIR No. 143 dated 22.8.2008 under sections 363, 366 read with section 34

IPC, Police Station Kasola, District Rewari.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

case file.

According to the FIR, lodged by Beer Singh, his sister Mausmi

alias Tina was enticed away by Sube Singh petitioner and thereafter Lali

Devi brother’s wife of Sube Singh, enticed her away. Sube Singh’s brother

Thawar Singh husband of Lali Devi, was also involved in the elopement.
Criminal Misc. No. M-30661 of 2008 -2-

Statement of Mausmi alias Tina has since been recorded under

section 164 Cr.P.C. She has stated that she herself fled from her house

having quarrelled with her brother Beer Singh complainant and she on her

own will married with one Ravinder and is residing happily with him as his

wife. She has also stated that the present petitioners have nothing to do

with her elopement and they have been named by her brother only due to

enmity.

In pursuance to said statement of Mausmi alias Tina, the police

has submitted cancellation report in the case.

According to the ossification test, age of the Mausmi alias Tina

was 18 to 19 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of

the aforesaid, no offence can be said to have been committed by the present

petitioners. Mausmi alias Tina has stated that petitioners have nothing to

do with her elopement. Learned counsel for the complainant contended

that Mausmi alias Tina was minor at the time of elopement. However,

admittedly there is no material on record to substantiate this contention.

Moreover, even if she was minor, the present petitioners have nothing to do

with her elopement.

In view of aforesaid but without meaning to express any

opinion on the merits, both the bail petitions are allowed. Both the

petitioners be released on bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Rewari.




                                                        ( L.N. Mittal )
July 15, 2009                                                Judge
 'dalbir'