CRM No.M-35988 of 2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M- 35988 of 2016(OM)
Date of Decision: February 27 , 2018.
Sushant Nanda …… PETITIONER (s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. H.S.Randhawa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Naresh Gopal 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?
*****
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No.194 dated 05.09.2016 under Sections 406/498A IPC,
registered at Police Station Shahkot, Jalandhar.
As per the allegations in the FIR, marriage between the petitioner
and the complainant/respondent No.2 was solemnized on 05.05.2007. Adequate
dowry was given to the petitioner and his family members. Allegations of ill-
treatment and harassment at their hands is alleged. Three children were born out
1 of 3
04-03-2018 06:46:40 :::
CRM No.M-35988 of 2016
-2-
of this wedlock. It is mentioned that a compromise was effected on 07.07.2014
(Annexure P5), but the petitioners backed out of the same. The present FIR was
registered on 05.09.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the present FIR has
been registered due to temperamental differences between the petitioner and
respondent No.2. Terms and conditions of the compromise (Annexure P5) were
carried out regarding the separate house in which the petitioner and respondent
No.2 were to reside together alongwith their minor children. Even during the
pendency of this petition, it was offered by the petitioner’s father that the said
house constructed over 8 marlas of land would be transferred in favour of the
petitioner and his wife, the complainant/respondent No.2. The keys of the said
house were handed over to respondent No.2 on 01.05.2017 before this Court.
However, respondent No.2 expressed her reservations regarding resumption of
matrimonial ties. It is submitted that the petitioner in order to show his
bonafides has executed three FDRs to the tune of `2,00,000/- each in favour of
three minor children without prejudice to his rights with a rider that they may
not be encashed till the children attain majority. It is submitted that the petitioner
has joined investigation and he undertakes to face the proceedings and not
misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if afforded to him. Therefore, it is
prayed that this petition be allowed.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not raised any serious
objection. The keys of the house mentioned above have been handed back by
respondent No.2 to the petitioner in Court today. Petitioner and respondent
No.2 are duly identified by their counsel. Three original FDRs i.e., of
2 of 3
04-03-2018 06:46:42 :::
CRM No.M-35988 of 2016
-3-
`2,00,000/- each in favour of the minor children as noted above have been
handed over to respondent No.2.
Photocopies of the said FDRs are taken on record subject to just
exceptions. Needless to say, the said FDRs stand deposited by the petitioner
without prejudice to his rights.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Avtar 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 or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing
true facts before the Court, 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. Consequently, order dated 17.10.2016 is made absolute.
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.
( LISA GILL )
February 27 , 2018. JUDGE
‘om’
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
04-03-2018 06:46:42 :::