SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dinesh Arora And Another vs State Of Haryana on 23 August, 2017


Criminal Misc. M- No. 19559 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : August 23, 2017

Dinesh Arora and another …..Petitioners


State of Haryana and another ….Respondents


Present: Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Himmat Singh, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.


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

petitioners in FIR No. 79 dated 16.05.2017 registered under Sections 323,

406, 498A, 506 IPC at Police Station Women, Sector 16A, Faridabad,

District Faridabad.

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

matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Petition under Section

13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

property in question has been transferred on 14.07.2017. The said deed of

transfer of property has been exhibited as Ex. P1 before the learned District

Judge, Family Court, Faridabad in the proceedings under Section 13-B of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A photocopy of the said transfer deed dated

14.07.2017 produced in Court today is taken on record subject to just


1 of 2
01-09-2017 11:19:17 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 19559 of 2017 (OM) -2-

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Kalu

Singh, verifies that the petitioners have since joined investigation.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the

petitioners are likely to abscond, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted above

especially the settlement arrived at between the parties but without

expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just and

expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated 26.05.2017 is

made absolute.

Liberty is afforded to respondent No. 2 to move appropriate

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

adhered to by the petitioners.

(Lisa Gill)
August 23, 2017 Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
01-09-2017 11:19:19 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation