214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No.M- 24609 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : September 21, 2017
Amritpal Singh …..Petitioner
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Devinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.
None for respondent No. 2.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 31 dated 02.06.2017 under Sections 498A, 406 IPC
registered at Police Station Women, District Bathinda.
None appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 despite service.
It is submitted that the above said FIR was registered due to
certain misunderstandings between the petitioner and the complainant. It is
further submitted that the complainant, in the meanwhile, has been
persuaded to return to her matrimonial home. She is residing in the
matrimonial home peacefully. The petitioner undertakes to provide a
conducive atmosphere in the matrimonial home. It is, thus, prayed that this
petition be allowed.
This matter was adjourned on 07.09.2017 to enable learned
counsel for the State to verify the factum of respondent No. 2 living in her
1 of 2
27-09-2017 01:08:23 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 24609 of 2017 (OM) -2-
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jagdev
Singh, informs that respondent No. 2 is indeed residing at her matrimonial
home alongwith her husband and family of her in-laws. The petitioner has
joined investigation but no recovery has been effected. It is verified that the
petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case.
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 noted above but
without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just
and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated 13.07.2017
is made absolute.
However, liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to move an
appropriate application in this matter, in case the facts projected before this
Court are incorrect.
September 21, 2017 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
27-09-2017 01:08:24 :::