209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. M- No. 41314 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : August 16, 2017
Harjit Singh …..Petitioner
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, 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. 58 dated 09.10.2016 registered under Section 406,
498A IPC at Police Station Women, District Amritsar.
It is submitted that the above said FIR has been registered due
to temperamental differences with the complainant i.e. his wife. It is further
submitted that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 on 17.05.2016 which is pending. Moreover, the
petitioner suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant’s brother.
Reference is made to Medico Legal Report dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure
P-3). The present FIR was registered on 09.10.2016. Moreover, the
petitioner has returned all articles belonging to the complainant. He has
joined investigation pursuant to order dated 21.11.2016. The petitioner, it is
submitted, made all efforts to facilitate mediation as well but the same has
failed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of `2500/- per
1 of 2
19-08-2017 14:26:28 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 41314 of 2016 (OM) -2-
month is being regularly paid by the petitioner as maintenance for the
minor child and the complainant. He undertakes to deposit the said amount
regularly without any default. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jatinder
Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation though it is
submitted that certain gold articles are yet to be recovered. However,
learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in Prit
Pal Singh versus State of Punjab and another 2014 (5) RCR (Criminal)
771 to urge that the concession of anticipatory bail should not be denied
merely on the ground of certain recoveries to be effected.
It is verified by learned counsel for the State 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 21.11.2016
is made absolute.
It is reiterated that none of the observations made herein above
are a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the
August 16, 2017 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
19-08-2017 14:26:29 :::