SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sumit Kumar @ Sandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 March, 2018

CRM No.M-20508 of 2017


Criminal Misc. No.M- 20508 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: March 26 , 2018.

Sumit Kumar @ Sandeep Singh …… PETITIONER (s)


State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sunil Mallan, Advocate for
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant/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

petitioner in FIR No.72 dated 25.04.2017 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC,

registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur.

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

has been amicably resolved between the parties. It is decided that petition under

Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 shall be filed on or before

1 of 3
15-04-2018 11:45:21 :::
CRM No.M-20508 of 2017

17.04.2018. A total sum of `11,00,000/- shall be remitted to the complainant as

full and final settlement of all her claims – past, present and future qua alimony,

maintenance etc. Settlement/agreement dated 26.03.2018, furnished in Court

today, is taken on record subject to just exceptions. The petitioner, it is

submitted, undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement in

letter and spirit. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed.

The complainant/respondent No.2, duly identified by her counsel, is

present in Court today. It is stated that she has no objection in case this petition

is allowed subject to the petitioner strictly adhering to the terms and conditions

of the settlement.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Hira 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. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released

on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall

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

However, liberty is afforded to the complainant/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 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

2 of 3
15-04-2018 11:45:22 :::
CRM No.M-20508 of 2017

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

March 26 , 2018. JUDGE

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

3 of 3
15-04-2018 11:45:22 :::

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