SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Madhu Bhateja & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 5 September, 2017


Date of decision: 05.09.2017

Madhu Bhateja and another


State of Haryana and another


Present: Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate,
for the petitioners.

Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vishal Sharma Haritwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.



This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners

in case FIR No.295 dated 03.12.2016 under Sections 323, 406, 498A IPC,

registered at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaishal.

This Court was pleased to pass the following order on

22.02.2017 :-

“Counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that though
it is true that the petitioners did not join investigation in
compliance with interim bail granted by the Court of Sessions but
it is submitted that as the petitioners reside in Bathinda and
application for bail was filed at Kaithal as the case has been
registered at Cheeka, for want of necessary communication from
counsel for the petitioners before the Court below they could not
join the investigation. It is further submitted that the petitioners are
ready to join investigation and co-operate throughout. They are
also ready to rehabilitate the complainant in the matrimonial home
because the marriage subsisted merely for a period of three

1 of 2
10-09-2017 09:09:45 :::
CRM-M-5900-2017 -2-

months. On oral request made by counsel for the petitioners, the
complainant is impleaded as a respondent.

Amended memo of parties be filed in the Registry.
Notice of motion for 27.04.2017.

In the meantime, the petitioners shall join the investigation
within a period of 10 days. In case, they join the investigation
within the stipulated period, they shall be released on interim bail
by the investigating officer subject to the following conditions:-

(i) They shall join the investigation as and when required by
the Investigating Officer.

(ii) They shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating
Officer/Court; and

(iii) They shall not leave the limits of this country without prior
permission of the Court.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners

have joined the investigation and a compromise has been effected between

the parties. The petitioners have also filed CRM-M-24393-2017 for

quashing of the said FIR.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State confirms the

aforesaid fact.

Since the petitioners have joined the investigation and

compromise has been effected between the parties, the petition is allowed

and interim order dated 22.02.2017 is hereby made absolute subject to the

condition that the petitioner will not tamper with evidence or hamper the

investigation; will not leave India without permission of the Court and will

comply with the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

05.09.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Satyawan JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes.
Whether reportable No.

2 of 2
10-09-2017 09:09:46 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments


Copyright © 2024 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