The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of a man who was allegedly acting in connivance with his son who married five women without divorcing his disabled spouse.
A single-judge bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi heard the petition under Section 438 CrPC for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case dated 07.03.2022 under Sections 420 and 494 IPC registered with Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur.
The FIR came to be registered at the instance of the complainant who stated that his sister got married to the son of the petitioner in 2001. Of the wedlock, two children were born i.e. a son in 2003 and a daughter in 2005. The son was 90% disabled and the sister of the complainant is also 80% disabled. Her in-laws had left the complainant’s sister along with the children at Sunam and the son of the petitioner never came back to look after her and her children either. In fact, the petitioner’s son in connivance with the petitioner had solemnized five marriages without getting a divorce from the complainant’s sister- and therefore, cheated not only the complainant’s sister but also other women with whom he had solemnized subsequent marriages.
Janak Singh Bhinder, counsel for the petitioner, contended that a bare reading of the FIR does not reveal the commission of any offence at least on the part of the petitioner and only Amarjit Singh could be held liable being the husband of Sharanjit Kaur. He, thus, contended the petitioner deserves the grant of concession of anticipatory bail.
Amitoj Singh Dhaliwal, counsel for the State, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner is seen in photographs at different weddings of his son. He is a signatory to a forged panchayati divorce with one woman. He is also a signatory to a gurdwara register where the marriage of his petitioner’s son was fixed with one another woman.
Dhaliwal, thus, contended that the petitioner being the father is an equal partner to his son’s offence. Even otherwise, it is contended that the mental cruelty meted out to the complainant’s sister and her children at the instance of the petitioner and petitioner’s son of not providing any emotional or financial security itself is sufficient to deny him the concession of bail.
While considering the petition, the Court observed that as per the photographs on the police file, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, is physically disabled and the grandson of the petitioner is also disabled. The petitioner is a signatory to various documents which show that he was aware of the multiple marriages of his son. Apart from that fact, there are photographs of the petitioner at the different marriages of his son with different ladies.
“Thus, in view of the seriousness of the allegation as also to unravel the truth regarding the multiple marriages of his son, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Therefore, the present petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail to to the petitioner is hereby dismissed,” the order reads.