Baljinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 February, 2018

CRM No.M-22298 of 2016


Criminal Misc. No.M- 22298 of 2016(OM)
Date of Decision: February 22 , 2018.

Baljinder Singh …… PETITIONER (s)
State of Punjab …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Amit Goyal, Advocate for
Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. S.S.Behl, Advocate
for the complainant.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?


Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner

in FIR No.63 dated 19.05.2016 under Sections 406/498A IPC, registered at Police

Station Women, District Ludhiana.

It is submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the matter

has been amicably resolved between the parties. The terms and conditions of the

settlement were reduced into writing on 20.12.2017, a copy whereof is on the

record of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the complainant inform

that petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed,

statements of the parties at first motion in the said proceedings have been recorded

1 of 2
25-02-2018 08:46:37 :::
CRM No.M-22298 of 2016

and part of the settled amount has been received by the complainant in terms of

the compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

joined investigation and he undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions of the

settlement arrived at between the parties. It is thus prayed that this petition be


Learned counsel for the complainant submits that his client has no

objection in case this petition is allowed subject to strict adherence to the terms

and conditions of the settlement by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Tarsem

Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and is not involved in

any other criminal case. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the

petitioner is likely to abscond, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without

commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition

is allowed. Consequently, order dated 08.07.2016 is made absolute.

Liberty is afforded to the complainant to move an appropriate

application in this case in case the terms and conditions of the settlement are not

adhered to by the petitioner.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be

construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

February 22 , 2018. JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

2 of 2
25-02-2018 08:46:38 :::

Leave a Comment

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