Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 December, 2017

CRM-M-37639-2016 (OM) -1-


CRM-M-37639-2016 (OM)
Date of decision : 07.12.2017

Avtar Singh

State of Punjab and another


Present: Mr. Suvir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Anju Arora, Addl.A.G., Punjab,
assisted by HC Sukhdev Singh.


The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.97 dated

05.09.2016, registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, at

Police Station Women Cell, District Ludhiana.


On 21.10.2016, the following order was passed:-

“The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized
with the complainant in the year 2010. Thereafter, a divorce
petition was filed, which was eventually withdrawn on
16.07.2015 (P-2). A complaint was made which was also
withdrawn and thus, no allegation of Section 406 IPC is made
out against the present petitioner.

On oral request of learned counsel for the
petitioner, complainant Tarwinder Kaur w/o Avtar Singh, H.
No. 2446 Near Lota Kanda, Surjit Cinema Road, Dandari
Kalan, Ludhiana is impleaded as respondent No. 2.

Subject to deposit of Rs.25,000/- as litigation
expenses, notice of motion be issued to the respondents,
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 10-12-2017 16:53:18 :::
CRM-M-37639-2016 (OM) -2-

returnable for 21.02.2017.

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

Learned counsel contends that the litigation expenses in terms

of order dated 21.02.2017, have been paid to the complainant. The

petitioner has repeatedly joined the investigation. No recovery is to be

effected from him. The parties have entered into compromise and in

pursuance thereof, petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,

has already been filed before the competent Court at Ludhiana.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that in

pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the

investigation and he is not required for custodial interrogation.

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

2 of 3
10-12-2017 16:53:19 :::
CRM-M-37639-2016 (OM) -3-

21.10.2016, is made absolute, subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds

to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate


The petition stands allowed.

atulsethi JUDGE

Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No

Whether Reportable : Yes No

3 of 3
10-12-2017 16:53:19 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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