Jeet Ram @ Jeet Kachochia vs Charan Dass on 24 September, 2008

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                               CHANDIGARH.



                                          Criminal Misc.24072-M of 2008

                           DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 24, 2008



JEET RAM @ JEET KACHOCHIA                           ....... PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS

CHARAN DASS                                         .... RESPONDENT(S)



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA



PRESENT: Mr. RK Girdhar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
         None for the respondent.


AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 17.9.2008, the

following has been noticed:-

“This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
for bail to the petitioner in complaint titled ‘Charan Dass vs.
Somi & Others’ under Sections 366, 363, 376, 120-B IPC and
Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Contention of learned counsel is that Sona, daughter of
the complainant, was married to Somi, son of co-accused of
the petitioner. The father of Sona was agitated and therefore,
lodged an FIR bearing No.71 dated 8.7.2001 under Sections
363, 366 IPC with Police Station, City, Faridkot. After
investigation, the FIR case was recommended to be cancelled.
The complainant thereafter filed the present complaint. The
petitioner has been appearing all through, however, on
11.4.2008, the petitioner could not put in appearance as he was
Criminal Misc.24072-M of 2008 2

away to Pakistan on a religious tour. The petitioner applied
for anticipatory bail, however, he was asked to apply for
regular bail. On petitioner’s filing regular bail, he has been
asked to surrender. The petitioner surrendered and applied for
regular bail which however has been declined.

Notice of motion for 24.9.2008.

The respondent-complainant be served through counsel
for the respondent before the Trial Court.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

respondent-complainant has been served.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case viz.

the petitioner had been appearing all through till 11.4.2008; on the said

date, he could not put in appearance because he was away to Pakistan on a

religious tour; on coming back, the petitioner applied for bail, however,

was asked to surrender; the petitioner surrendered and applied for regular

bail, this petition is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.

September 24, 2008                                          ( AJAI LAMBA )
Kang                                                                JUDGE