IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Date of decision: 12.12.2017
State of Haryana and another
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.NS Shekhawat, Advocate
for the petitioner
Ms.Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana
assisted by ASI Vijay Kumar
Mr.MK Sood, Advocate for respondent No.2.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed
for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.14 dated 28.1.2017,
On 27.2.2017, this Court had passed the following order:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a doctor working in the hospital at Muradabad
(U.P.) and his wife i.e. respondent No.2 is also MBA and
working in a multinational company. One male child was born
who is now one year old from this wedlock. He further submits
that petitioner is ready for compromise if, the matter is referred
Notice of motion for 01.05.2017.
Notice be issued to respondent No.2, on depositing of
1 of 3
16-12-2017 01:06:20 :::
Rs.40,000/- towards litigation expenses by the petitioner before
the next date of hearing with the Registry of this Court which is
to be issued to respondent No.2. In the meantime, the petitioner
is directed to join investigation and appear before the
investigating officer. In the event of arrest, the petitioner be
released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the
arresting/investigating officer. However, the petitioner shall
join investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall
remain bound by the following conditions enumerated under
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
1. Petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court;
4. Such other condition as may be imposed under
subsection (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted
under that section.”
Respondent No.2-wife heard in person. She states that though
the FIR is factually correct, however, she has compromised with the
petitioner and has condoned his acts. She has decided to join the company
of the petitioner.
It is contended that in pursuance of order dated 27.2.2017, the
petitioner has joined the investigation.
The learned State counsel, on instructions, admits the factum of
2 of 3
16-12-2017 01:06:22 :::
of the petitioner joining the investigation. She further submits that he is not
required for custodial interrogation.
In view of the statement made by respondent No.2- wife and
the fact that the petitioner has repeatedly joined the investigation, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the interim bail granted by
this Court vide order dated 27.2.2017, 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.
12.12.2017 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
3 of 3
16-12-2017 01:06:22 :::