Seema v. State Of Haryana & ANR

Criminal Misc.No.M-1231 of 2016 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-1231 of 2016 Date of Decision: January 14, 2016 Seema

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

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?

Present:

Mr.Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.(Oral) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Seema, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.26, dated 14.01.2015, registered at Police Station, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar. Learned counsel contends that it is the third petition for grant of anticipatory bail. First petition was withdrawn with permission to file fresh one if need be. The second petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to file fresh one before learned Court of Session in view of the changed circumstances. He further submits that the affidavit of Smt.Santosh, mother of SEEMA RANI 2016.01.18 16:25 I attest the accuracy and authencity of the document

Criminal Misc.No.M-1231 of 2016 [2] the petitioner, would reveal that a compromise has been effected and as such, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that after withdrawal of the second petition from this Court, the petitioner approached the Court of Session but perusal of the latest order passed by the said Court would reveal that not even a whisper was there with regard to compromise. The affidavit of mother of the petitioner would not persuade this Court to presume that the parties have resolved their dispute and effected a compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically asked to tender the affidavit of the informant/aggrieved person in support of his submission that there was a compromise between the parties but he submitted that the informant had denied to execute an affidavit. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the gravity involved, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. Dismissed.

January 14, 2016 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge SEEMA RANI 2016.01.18 16:25 I attest the accuracy and authencity of the document