- (1.) The petitioner, only child of her parents, born on 08.09.1983, M.Sc. in Zoology, now pursuing her Ph.D. in Physiology from Punjabi University, Patiala, was engaged to Sanbir (respondent No.3), LL.B. From Panjab University, Chandigarh on 09.03.2011. Unfortunately, with the demise of her father on 08.07.2011, their marriage was postponed to be performed after the first Barsi of her father. The date of their marriage was ultimately fixed as 13.09.2013 but before that, respondent No.3 was arrested in a case registered vide FIR No.34 dated 27.02.2013 at Police Station Mataur, under Sections 302, 307, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act and is at present lodged in the New District Jail, Nabha w.e.f. 21.05.2013, having been transferred from Maximum Security Jail, Nabha, as per the orders of the Additional Director General of Police (Jails), Punjab, Chandigarh and is also facing trial in case registered vide FIR No.392 dated 31.08.2013, under Section 52-A of the Prison Act, 1894, at Police Station Tripuri, District Patiala, in which though he is on bail but has never been released on bail in the case registered vide FIR No.34 dated 27.02.2013 and is in custody from the last 2- 1/2 years. An application bearing CRM-M-25274-2013 was filed by respondent No.3 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") alleging that since his marriage has been fixed on 13.09.2013, therefore, he may be released to perform his marriage with the petitioner. On the said application, an enquiry was conducted about the factum of the marriage but still, keeping in view the seriousness of the crime, the application for bail was declined. The order passed by this Court in CRM-M-25274-2013 is reproduced as under:- "The date in the main case is preponed from 19.9.2013 to 9.9.2013 i.e. today. By filing the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have sought regular bail in case FIR No.34, dated 27.2.2013, registered under Sections 302, 307, 427, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Mator, District SAS Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that marriage of petitioner No.1 is scheduled to be held on 13.9.2013. In support of his case, he has placed on record the wedding card. He further submits that the petitioners were neither arrested from the spot nor any over act has been attributed to the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners are in custody since March, 2013. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that after his arrest, petitioner, Sanbir Singh has committed jail offence and in this regard FIR No.392 dated 31.8.2013 has been registered against him. Heard. It is a case of murder. The petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR. In pursuance of the order dated 26.8.2013, passed by this Court, an inquiry with regard to the factum of marriage was carried out by ASI Jagir Singh. Report dated 31.8.2013, (Annexure R-1) furnished by the SHO, Police Station Mator, is attached with the reply filed by the State. In the report, it is mentioned that as per the booking register of Khazana Resorts and further as per the statement of Suersh Kumar Rada, General Manager of the Resort, the booking was done about 15 days prior to 29.8.2013, indicating the booking date as 24.1.2013. It is further mentioned in the report that during interrogation after his arrest, petitioner No.1, did not disclose about the scheduled marriage. The charges are yet to be framed. From the facts on record, it appears that the petitioners under the garb of solemnization of the marriage want to flee from the country. The petitioners have also committed jail offence, and in this regard an FIR has been lodged. Keeping in view the totality of the facts, this court is of the considered view that the documents filed by the petitioners are not sufficient to conclude the factum of the proposed marriage as asserted in the petition. Even if the factum of marriage is proved, still the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, keeping in view the serious nature of the crime and gravity of allegations, and furthermore, in view of the petitioners conduct in jail. Dismissed. However, anything stated hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the case."
(2.) Respondent No.3 also filed an application before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali (trial Court), allowing him to solemnize marriage with the petitioner but the said application was also dismissed on 04.12.2014. Thus, the present petition has been filed by the fiancee of respondent No.3 for quashing of the order dated 04.12.2014 passed by the trial Court, dis-allowing the application, moved by respondent No.3 and also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondents No.1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to perform marriage with respondent No.3.
(3.) At the time of issuance of notice of motion, this Court not only asked for seeking the willingness of respondent No.3 in respect of the marriage but also asked the State counsel to seek instruction after applying Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and to consider her case as to whether the conduct of respondent No.3 had been such as to allow the benefit of application of Section 3 of the Act.;