Vikas Verma vs State Of Punjab on 3 May, 2017

202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. M- No. 37081 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : May 03, 2017

Vikas Verma …..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ….Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurveer Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

***

LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in FIR No. 104 dated 13.08.2016 registered under Sections 406,

498A, 420, 493 IPC at Police Station Women Cell Jalandhar, District

Jalandhar.

It is submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the

parties have arrived at an amicable settlement before the Mediation and

Conciliation Centre of this Court on 24.03.2017. The terms and conditions

of settlement dated 24.03.2017 are taken on record. In terms of the said

settlement, it is submitted that a sum of `30,000/- has already been handed

over to the complainant – respondent No. 2. In terms of the settlement, a

demand draft dated 02.05.2017 drawn on Dena Bank at Jalandhar for a sum

of `1,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2, who is present in

Court. She is duly identified by her counsel.

1 of 2
07-05-2017 07:35:11 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 37081 of 2016 (OM) -2-

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that in view of

the settlement between the parties, there is no objection to the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner provided he abides by the terms and

conditions of the settlement as arrived at between the parties.

READ  Manas Acharya vs State & Anr on 29 August, 2012

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Harish

Kumar, Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar submits that the petitioner

has joined investigation pursuant to order dated 19.10.2016.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the

petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the

witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances particularly

settlement dated 24.03.2017 arrived at between the parties, but without

expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just and

expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated 19.10.2016 is

made absolute.

Needless to say that both the parties are bound by the terms and

conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Liberty is

afforded to respondent No. 2 to move an appropriate application, in case,

the petitioner does not adhere to the terms and conditions of the settlement

dated 24.03.2017.

(Lisa Gill)
May 03, 2017 Judge
rts

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
07-05-2017 07:35:12 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *