Ajit vs State Of Haryana on 12 October, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-20168-2016
Date of decision: 12.10.2017

Ajit
…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another
…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

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

****

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

This is a petition that has been filed for grant of anticipatory

bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.21 dated 08.01.2016 under Sections

406, 498A, 506 IPC (offences under Sections 313, 34, 377 IPC were

deleted), registered at Police Station City Rohtak, District Rohtak.

This Court was pleased to pass the following order on

03.06.2016 :-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute
arose between the parties is due to temperamental in nature.
Earlier also, a complaint was made by the complainant but the
allegations levelled therein were found to be false. Learned
counsel further submits that earlier the present FIR was registered
under Sections 313, 377 read with Section 34 IPC but the same
were deleted subsequently. In the initial complaint, the allegations
levelled against the petitioner were that he was having relations
with some other woman. Subsequently, the complaint was made by
alleging certain allegations of demand of dowry and harassment

1 of 3
15-10-2017 06:50:12 :::
CRM-M-20168-2016 -2-

and all the family members of the petitioner have been implicated.
The petitioner made all efforts to settle the dispute but still it could
not be settled. The petitioner has also filed a divorce petition much
prior to the lodging of the present FIR, which is still pending. The
petitioner is still ready to settle the dispute with the complainant.

On oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner,
complainant-Anita D/o Sh. Rajpal resident of House No.1290/1,
Shastri Nagar, Hisar Bye Pass, Rohtak is impleaded as respondent
No.2.

Notice of motion for 09.09.2016.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join investigation
and in the event of arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to
the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer subject to deposit of an

amount of ` 35,000/- as litigation expenses by way of draft in the
name of the complainant with the investigating Officer, which shall
be handed over to the complainant. He shall join the investigation
as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall also
comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are as under:-

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation before investigating officer as and when
required;

(ii) that the petitioner 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) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior
permission of the Court. Parties are directed to be present
in the Court on the next date of hearing.

The parties are directed to be present in the Court
on the next date of hearing.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner ssubmits that the petitioner

has joined the investigation.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State confirms the

aforesaid fact.

2 of 3
15-10-2017 06:50:13 :::
CRM-M-20168-2016 -3-

Since the petitioner has joined the investigation, the petition is

allowed and interim order dated 03.06.2016 is hereby made absolute subject

to the condition that the petitioner will not tamper with evidence or hamper

the investigation; will not leave India without permission of the Court and

will comply with the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

12.10.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Satyawan JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes.
Whether reportable No.

3 of 3
15-10-2017 06:50:13 :::

Leave a Comment

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