The Punjab and Haryana High Court has “highly deprecated” the practice adopted by a Sirsa trial court of repeatedly adjourning a bail application filed by a husband in a marital discord case merely to await the outcome of a transfer petition pending before the High Court. The Bench held that the trial court was “duty bound to decide the bail application” in the absence of any interim stay.
Justice Ramesh Kumari directed the trial court to decide the husband’s bail application within five working days after receiving the High Court order.
The High Court was dealing with the husband’s petition seeking, among other reliefs, a direction for expeditious disposal of his bail application in connection with a case registered on June 23 at a women police station in Sirsa.
Appearing on the petitioner’s behalf, advocates Harsh Chopra and Simran Kaur Bhatti told the court that the FIR (for subjecting a married woman to cruelty and other offences) was registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506, 420, 354-A and 34 of the IPC.
The Bench was further told that the marriage was solemnised on November 27, 2023. The wife lodged the FIR against the husband and his family following a discord between the couple. It was added that the petitioner filed bail application before the trial court, following which notice was served upon the State as well as counsel for the complainant on July 24. However, the application was not decided despite a number of opportunities.
Goel thereafter moved an application seeking a decision on the bail plea. The trial court, after taking the reply, dismissed that application vide order dated September 14 on the ground that a transfer petitionwas pending before the High Court.
The Bench found that there was, in fact, no stay order in the transfer petition. “It has come on record that no stay order in petition has been issued,” Justice Kumari recorded. The Court further noted that the bail application had been filed on July 24, and was still pending before the trial court on the ground that the transfer petition was pending before the High Court. “In the absence of any interim stay, the trial Court is duty bound to decide the bail application,” the High Court held.
Before parting with the case, the Bench noted: “The practice adopted by the trial Court for adjournment of the bail application of the petitioner time and again, simply to await the order in the petition is highly deprecated.”
The High Court consequently directed the trial Court to decide the application within five working days. The trial court was directed to “duly consider and discuss all the documents placed on record by both the parties before it”. The September 14 order was accordingly set aside.
