{"id":215578,"date":"2008-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008"},"modified":"2015-05-15T17:29:40","modified_gmt":"2015-05-15T11:59:40","slug":"rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Dr. Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.M. Panchal<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  428 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nRekha Patel\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPankaj Verma and Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/03\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & J.M. PANCHAL\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 428               OF 2008
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6495 of 2006)<\/p>\n
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tChallenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the
\nDivision Bench of the Allahabad High Court passed on a
\npetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
\n(for short ‘The Constitution’).\n<\/p>\n
3.
\nThe appellant was married to respondent No.1 on 12.11.2005.
\nAlleging that she was being harassed for non-fulfilment of the
\ndemand of dowry, a complaint was filed at Thana, Jawan
\nPolice Station, District Aligarh. On the basis of appellant’s
\ncomplaint Crime No.277 of 2006 was registered for alleged
\ncommission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
\n504 and 506 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘The
\nIPC’) and Sections 3\/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for
\nshort ‘The Dowry Act’). Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a writ
\npetition for quashing the F.I.R. and for stay of arrest pending
\nthe disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition was filed on
\n1.11.2006. By the impugned order dated 7.11.2006 the High
\nCourt declined to accept the prayer for stay of arrest of the
\nrespondents but nevertheless passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
“Considering the facts and circumstances of
\nthe case, in the event the petitioners put in
\ntheir appearance or are produced before the
\ncourts below and make application for their
\nrelease on bail in case crime No. 277 of 2006
\nunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506
\nI.P.C., Police Station Jawan, District Aligarh,
\nthe same shall be heard and disposed of
\nexpeditiously in accordance with law and in
\ncase of petitioner Nos.1 to 5, if the learned
\nMagistrate does not find fit case to release
\nthem on bail, they shall be released on
\npersonal bond of Rs.30,000\/- each and they
\nshall remain on the same personal bonds till
\nthe final disposal of their bail application, if
\nany, by the Court of Sessions and that too
\nwithin a week thereafter.”\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that
\nvirtually there has been exercise of power under Section 438 of
\nthe Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short ‘The Cr.P.C.’). It
\nis pointed out that in the State of U.P., Section 438 Cr.P.C.
\nhas no application.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9 submitted
\nthat the direction given by the High Court is clearly contrary to
\nthe decision of this Court in Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of
\nWest Bengal (2005 (4) SCC 303).\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThere is no appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to
\n6 in spite of service of notice.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tAs rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
\nappellant, presently Section 438 Cr.P.C. has no application to
\nthe State of U.P. Even otherwise, as noted in Adri Dharan
\nDas’s case (supra), after surrender of accused and rejection of
\nhis bail application, the protection of the nature granted by
\nthe High Court cannot be given. In this context paragraphs 7,
\n8, 9 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Adri Dharan Das’s case (supra) are
\nrelevant. They read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“7. The facility which Section 438 of the Code
\ngives is generally referred to as ‘anticipatory
\nbail’. This expression which was used by the
\nLaw Commission in its 41st Report is neither
\nused in the section nor in its marginal note.
\nBut the expression ‘anticipatory bail’ is a
\nconvenient mode of indication that it is
\npossible to apply for bail in anticipation of
\narrest.  Any order of bail can be effective only
\nfrom the time of arrest of the accused.
\nWharton’s Law Lexicon explains ‘bail’ as ‘to set
\nat liberty a person arrested or imprisoned, on
\nsecurity being taken for his appearance.’ Thus
\nbail is basically release from restraint, more
\nparticularly the custody of Police. The
\ndistinction between an ordinary order of bail
\nand an order under Section 438 of the Code is
\nthat whereas the former is granted after arrest,
\nand therefore means release from custody of
\nthe Police, the latter is granted in anticipation
\nof arrest and is therefore effective at the very
\nmoment of arrest.(See: Gur Baksh Singh v.
\nState of Punjab 1980(2) SCC 565). Section
\n46(1) of\tthe Code, which deals with how
\narrests are to be made, provides that in
\nmaking an arrest the Police officer or other
\nperson making the same “shall actually touch
\nor confine the body of the person to be
\narrested, unless there be a submission to the
\ncustody by word or action”.  The order under
\nSection 438 of the Code is intended to confer
\nconditional immunity from the touch as
\nenvisaged by Section 46(1) of the Code or any
\nconfinement.  The apex Court in Balachand
\nJain v. State of Madhya Pradesh  (AIR 1977 SC\n<\/p>\n
366) has described the expression ‘anticipatory
\nbail’ as misnomer.  It is well-known that bail is
\nordinary manifestation of arrest, that the
\nCourt thinks first to make an order is that in
\nthe event of arrest a person shall be released
\non bail. Manifestly there is no question of
\nrelease on bail unless the accused is arrested,
\nand therefore, it is only on an arrest being
\neffected the order becomes operative. The
\npower exercisable under Section 438 is
\nsomewhat extraordinary in character and it is
\nonly in exceptional cases where it appears that
\nthe person may be falsely implicated or where
\nthere are reasonable grounds for holding that
\na person accused of an offence is not likely to
\notherwise misuse his liberty then power is to
\nbe exercised under Section 438.  The power
\nbeing of important nature it is entrusted only
\nto the higher echelons of judicial forums, i.e.
\nthe Court of Session or the High Court. It is
\nthe power exercisable in case of an anticipated
\naccusation of non-bailable offence.  The object
\nwhich is sought to be achieved by Section 438
\nof the Code is that the moment a person is
\narrested, if he has already obtained an order
\nfrom the Court of Session or High Court, he
\nshall be released immediately on bail without
\nbeing sent to jail.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tSections 438 and 439 operate in different
\nfields. Section 439 of the Code reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“439. (1) A High Court or Court of Session
\nmay direct –\n<\/p>\n
(a) that any person accused of an offence
\nand in custody be released on bail, and if
\nthe offence is of the nature specified in
\nsub-section (3) of Section 437, may
\nimpose any condition which it considers
\nnecessary for the purposes mentioned in
\nthat sub-section;\n<\/p>\n
(b) that any condition imposed by the
\nMagistrate when releasing any person on
\nbail be set aside or modified.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(underlined for emphasis)<\/p>\n
9.\tIt is clear from a bare reading of the
\nprovisions that for making an application in
\nterms of Section 439 of the Code a person has
\nto be in custody. Section 438 of the Code deals
\nwith “Direction for grant of bail to person
\napprehending arrest”.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v.
\nState of Maharashtra (AIR<\/a> 1996 SC 1042) it
\nwas observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Anticipatory bail is granted in
\nanticipation of arrest in non-bailable
\ncases, but that does not mean that the
\nregular court, which is to try the offender,
\nis sought to be bypassed and that is the
\nreason why the High Court very rightly
\nfixed the outer date for the continuance
\nof the bail and on the date of its expiry
\ndirected the petitioner to move the
\nregular court for bail. That is the correct
\nprocedure to follow because it must be
\nrealised that when the Court of Sessions
\nor the High Court is granting anticipatory
\nbail, it is granted at a stage when the
\ninvestigation is incomplete and, therefore,
\nit is not informed about the nature of
\nevidence against the alleged offender. It
\nis, therefore, necessary that such
\nanticipatory bail orders should be of a
\nlimited duration only and ordinarily on
\nthe expiry of that duration or extended
\nduration the court granting anticipatory
\nbail should leave it to the regular court to
\ndeal with the matter on an appreciation
\nof evidence placed before it after the
\ninvestigation has made progress or the
\ncharge-sheet is submitted”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
11.\tIn K.L. Verma v. State and Anr. (1996 (7)
\nSCALE 20) this Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“This Court further observed that
\nanticipatory bail is granted in
\nanticipation of arrest in non-bailable
\ncases, but that does not mean that the
\nregular court, which is to try the offender,
\nis sought to be bypassed. It was,
\ntherefore, pointed out that it was
\nnecessary that such anticipatory bail
\norders should be of a limited duration
\nonly and ordinarily on the expiry of that
\nduration or extended duration the court
\ngranting anticipatory bail should leave it
\nto the regular court to deal with the
\nmatter on an appreciation of evidence
\nplaced before it after the investigation has
\nmade progress or the charge-sheet is
\nsubmitted. By this, what the Court
\ndesired to convey was that an order of
\nanticipatory bail does not enure till the
\nend of trial but it must be of limited
\nduration as the regular court cannot be
\nbypassed. The limited duration must be
\ndetermined having regard to the facts of
\nthe case and the need to give the accused
\nsufficient time to move the regular court
\nfor bail and to give the regular court
\nsufficient time to determine the bail
\napplication. In other words, till the bail
\napplication is disposed of one way or the
\nother the court may allow the accused to
\nremain on anticipatory bail. To put it
\ndifferently, anticipatory bail may be
\ngranted for a duration which may extend
\nto the date on which the bail application
\nis disposed of or even a few days
\nthereafter to enable the accused persons
\nto move the higher court, if they so
\ndesire.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
12.\tIn Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. and
\nAnother (2004 (7) SCC 558) and Sunita Devi v.
\nState of Bihar and Anr. Criminal Appeal
\narising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4601 of 2003
\ndisposed of on 6.12.2004 certain grey areas in
\nthe case of K.L. Verma’s case (supra) were
\nnoticed. The same related to the observation
\n“or even a few days thereafter to enable the
\naccused persons to move the Higher Court, if
\nthey so desire”. It was held that the
\nrequirement of Section 439 of the Code is not
\nwiped out by the above observations.  Section
\n439 comes into operation only when a person
\nis “in custody”.  In K.L. Verma’s case (supra)
\nreference was made to Salauddin’s case
\n(supra). In the said case there was no such
\nindication as given in K.L. Verma’s case
\n(supra),  that a few days can be granted to the
\naccused to move the higher Court if they so
\ndesire.  The statutory requirement of Section
\n439 of the Code cannot be said to have been
\nrendered totally inoperative by the said
\nobservation.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIn view of the clear language of Section
\n439 and in view of the decision of this Court in
\nNiranjan Singh and Anr. v. Prabhakar Rajaram
\nKharote and Ors. (AIR<\/a> 1980 SC 785), there
\ncannot be any doubt that unless a person is in
\ncustody, an application for bail under Section
\n439 of the Code would not be maintainable.
\nThe question when a person can be said to be
\nin custody within the meaning of Section 439
\nof the Code came up for consideration before
\nthis Court in the aforesaid decision.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIt is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the
\nState that pursuant to the direction given by the High Court,
\nthe respondents had moved for bail and have been granted
\nbail by the learned Sessions Judge concerned.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn view of the aforesaid situation, we decline to interfere
\nin the appeal; but have considered it necessary to indicate the
\ncorrect parameters so that the mistake committed by the High
\nCourt is not repeated.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe appeal is disposed of, subject to the aforesaid
\nobservations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008 Author: Dr. Arijit Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.M. Panchal CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 428 of 2008 PETITIONER: Rekha Patel RESPONDENT: Pankaj Verma and Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/03\/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & J.M. PANCHAL JUDGMENT: J U D […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-215578","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-15T11:59:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-15T11:59:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1954,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Rekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-15T11:59:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-15T11:59:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-15T11:59:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008"},"wordCount":1954,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008","name":"Rekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-15T11:59:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rekha-patel-vs-pankaj-verma-and-ors-on-3-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rekha Patel vs Pankaj Verma And Ors on 3 March, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215578","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215578"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215578\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}