Jasvir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 September, 2017

CRM-M-21716-2016 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-21716-2016
Date of decision: 13.9.2017

Jasvir Singh
…Petitioner

Versus
State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present: Mr.Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr.AS Gill, Sr.DAG, Punjab
assisted by ASI Bhola Singh

Mr.SS Bhinder, Advocate for the complainant
****

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

The present petition under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in case First Information Report No.24 dated 4.6.2016

registered under Sections 406 498A of the Indian Penal Code at Police

Station Women Cell Bathinda, District Bathinda.

On 11.7.2016, the following order was passed by this

Court:-

1 of 3
18-09-2017 01:27:18 :::
CRM-M-21716-2016 2

“Subject to deposit of Rs.20,000/- as litigation
expenses by the petitioner, notice of motion be
issued to the respondents, returnable for
19.08.2016 to enable the parties to reach to an
amicable settlement, if possible.
Meanwhile, petitioner is directed to join the
investigation as and when called by the
Investigating Officer. In the event of his arrest,
he shall be released on bail by the Investigating
Officer on his furnishing bail bonds/sureties to
his satisfaction, subject to the conditions
mentioned below, as envisaged in Section 438
(2) Cr.P.C :-

i. a condition that the person shall make himself
available for interrogation by Police Officer as
and when required;

ii. a condition that the person shall not, directly
or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer;

iii. a condition that the person shall not leave
India without the previous permission of the
Court
iv. such other condition as may be imposed
under sub section (3) of Section 437, as if the
bail were granted under that section.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has joined the investigation and also has been regularly paying the

maintenance to the complainant and undertakes to continue the same.

2 of 3
18-09-2017 01:27:19 :::
CRM-M-21716-2016 3

On the other hand, learned State counsel informs that

recovery of the dowry articles has so far not been effected.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that

the petitioner is not paying anything towards the maintenance of the

children.

Heard.

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case and the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation, without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the interim bail granted

to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2016, is made

absolute, subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate,

concerned.

The petition stands allowed.

However, if the petitioner does not comply with the

undertaking given by him, the complainant shall be at liberty to revive

the petition.

13.9.2017 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
gsv JUDGE

Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes / No

Whether reportable? Yes / No

3 of 3
18-09-2017 01:27:19 :::

Leave a Comment

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