Rahul vs State Of Haryana on 19 July, 2017

CRM-M-1908-2017 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M -1908 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision: 19.07.2017

Rahul
…Petitioner
Versus

State of Haryana and another
…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present: Mr. Vikas P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Mahima Yashpal, AAG, Haryana
assisted by ASI Sooraj Singh.

Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

By filing the present petition under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought anticipatory

bail in FIR No.871 dated 17.12.2016, registered under Sections 323,

354A (1), 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, at Police Station

Central, Faridabad.

On 23.01.2017, this Court had passed the following

order:-

“Counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
offence under Section 354A(1) of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short ‘IPC’) has been deleted later in point of time.
It is further submitted that the Court below dismissed the
application for bail primarily on the ground that dowry
articles are yet to be recovered but as a matter of fact no
case under Section 406 IPC is registered against the

1 of 2
22-07-2017 23:43:20 :::
CRM-M-1908-2017 -2-

petitioner. It is further argued that offence under Section 323
IPC is bailable and no recovery is to be effected from the
petitioner who is otherwise ready to join investigation.

Notice of motion for 25.04.2017.

In the meantime, the petitioner shall join the
investigation within a period of 10 days. In case, he joins the
investigation within the stipulated period, he shall be
released on interim bail by the investigating officer subject
to the following conditions:-

(i) He shall join the investigation as and when
required by the Investigating Officer.

(ii) He shall not offer any threat, promise or
inducement to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the
same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and

(iii) He shall not leave the limits of this country
without prior permission of the Court.”

It is contended that in pursuance of the order dated

23.01.2017, the petitioner has joined the investigation.

The learned State counsel, on instructions submits that

the petitioner has joined the investigation and he is not required for

custodial interrogation. She further states that respondent No.2

refused to remove the dowry articles from the house of the petitioner.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on

the merits of the case, the interim bail granted by this Court vide

order dated 23.01.2017, is made absolute, subject to furnishing bail

bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

The petition stands allowed.

19.07.2017 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
sumit.k JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable: Yes No

2 of 2
22-07-2017 23:43:21 :::

Leave a Comment

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