Jitender Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 31 May, 2017

206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. M- No. 7867 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : May 31, 2017

Jitender Kumar …..Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another ….Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Gaurav Singh Hooda, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.

***

LISA GILL, J.

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

petitioner in FIR No. 720 dated 10.12.2016 registered under Sections 498A,

323, 406, 34 IPC at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurugram, Haryana.

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

matter has been amicably resolved between the parties before the Mediation

and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 07.04.2017. The terms and

conditions were reduced into writing. The settlement/agreement dated

07.04.2017 is attached with this file. The petitioner and his wife –

respondent No. 2 have decided to part ways. Petition under Section 13-B of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed. Part payment in terms of

settlement has been received by respondent No. 2.

1 of 2
10-06-2017 05:55:14 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 7867 of 2017 (OM) -2-

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

the settlement between the parties, respondent No. 2 has no objection to the

grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Krishan

Kumar, submits that the petitioner has joined investigation. He is not

READ  Sudhir Kumar Jain &Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi &Anr. on 18 November, 2011

required for custodial interrogation.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the

petitioner is likely to abscond, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances especially the

settlement 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 08.03.2017 is made absolute.

Liberty is, however, afforded to respondent No. 2 to move an

appropriate application in case the terms and conditions of the settlement

dated 07.04.2017 are not adhered to by the petitioner.

(Lisa Gill)
May 31, 2017 Judge
rts

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
10-06-2017 05:55:15 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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