SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nachattar Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 2017

CRM No.M-5187 of 2017


Criminal Misc. No.M- 5187 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: October 13 , 2017.

Nachattar Singh and another …… PETITIONER (s)


State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Ashok Khunger, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. S.S.Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
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

petitioners in FIR No.4 dated 24.01.2017 under Sections 498A/406 IPC

registered at Police Station Women Cell, Bathinda, District Bathinda.

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

has been resolved between the parties. The petitioners’ son and respondent No.2

decided to part ways and have filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955. A part of the settled amount has been handed over to

1 of 2
16-10-2017 23:43:29 :::
CRM No.M-5187 of 2017

respondent No.2 and the matter is listed before the concerned court on

28.02.2018 for recording their statements at second motion in the said


Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Gurdeep

Singh, verifies that the petitioners have joined investigation.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioners

are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from

deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, particularly

the settlement arrived between the parties, but without commenting upon or

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. In the

event of arrest of the petitioners, they be released on bail to the satisfaction of

Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer. The petitioners shall join investigation

as and when required by the investigating agency besides comply with the

conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

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.

However, liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to move an

appropriate application, in case the terms and conditions of settlement between

the parties are not adhered to by the petitioners and their son.

October 13 , 2017. JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

2 of 2
16-10-2017 23:43:31 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2021 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