In CRM-M-26665-2022(O&M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC denies relief of anticipatory bail to father for allegedly conniving with his son who married multiple times without getting divorce from his existing spouse Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi [16-06-2022]

Read Order: Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, June 17, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently denied the concession of anticipatory bail to a father for allegedly acting in connivance with his son who solemnized multiple marriages without getting divorce from his disabled spouse who was alive at the time of performance of these marriages. 

The Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held in this regard, “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.”

The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR registered under Sections 420 and 494 IPC  with Police Station City Sunam, District Sangru. 

The present FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant who stated that his sister got married to Amarjit Singh son of Ajaib Singh (the present petitioner) in the year 2001 and out of the wedlock, two children were born.

The son was 90% disabled and the sister of the complainant was also 80% disabled. It was alleged in the FIR that his sister’s in-laws (including the present petitioner) left her along with her children at Sunam and her husband never came back to look after her and her children. 

Rather, the complainant alleged that her sister’s husband in connivance with his father (the present petitioner) had solemnized five marriages without getting a divorce from his sister and therefore, he cheated not only his sister but also other women with whom he had solemnized subsequent marriages. 

It was the case of the petitioner’s counsel that a bare reading of the FIR did not reveal the commission of any offence at least on the part of the petitioner and that only his son could be held liable being the husband of the complainant’s sister. He, thus, contended that the petitioner deserved the grant of concession of anticipatory bail.

On the contrary, the State counsel contended that the petitioner was seen in photographs at different weddings of his son-Amarjit Singh and he was also a signatory to a forged Panchayati divorce with one Satnam Kaur. 

Also, the Counsel submitted that the petitioner was a signatory to a Gurudwara Register where the marriage of his son Amarjit Singh was fixed with one Jaswinder Kaur and thus, the Counsel argued that the petitioner being the father of Amarjit Singh was an equal partner to the offence committed by his son Amarjit Singh. 

Even otherwise, it was contended that the mental cruelty meted out to Sharanjit Kaur and her children at the instance of Amarjit Singh and the petitioner-Ajaib Singh, her father-in-law of not providing any emotion or financial security itself was sufficient to deny him the concession of bail.

After hearing the parties, the Court noted that as per the photographs on the police file, Sharanjit Kaur, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, was physically disabled and the grandson of the petitioner was also disabled. 

Also, the Court noted that the petitioner was a signatory to various documents which showed that he was aware of the multiple marriages of his son. 

Apart from that fact, Justice Bedi observed that there were 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 was necessary. 

Therefore, the present petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner was dismissed.