Shalu & ANR v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13485 of 2015 Date of Decision: 26.5.2015 Shalu and another .....Petitioners Vs.

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Parveen Aggarwal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the complainant.

**** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL) Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 105 dated 9.3.2015 registered under Sections 498-A/406/506/120-B IPC at Police Station Narnaud, District Hisar.

Notice of motion was issued and interim protection was granted.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, petitioners have joined the investigation and they are no more required for the purpose of any further investigation. He prays for allowing the present petition. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Raghubir Singh Police Station Narnaud, also fairly states that petitioners have joined the investigation and they are no more required for the purpose of any further investigation. He prays for dismissal of the present petition.

AMIT KUMAR 2015.05.27 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-13485 of 2015 Learned counsel for the complainant, on instructions from the complainant who is present in the Court, vehemently opposes the present petition contending that some dowry articles have not been got recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that there are chances of amicable settlement between the parties. He prays for dismissal of the present petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, petitioners have been found entitled for the concession of anticipatory bail. It is so said, because both the petitioners are sisters-in-law (Jethani and Nanad) of the petitioner. Whatever dowry articles were to be recovered, have already been recovered from the petitioners.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and leaving the scope of an amicable settlement open, order dated 28.4.2015 passed by this Court is hereby made absolute, however, subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Disposed of, accordingly.

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 26.5.2015 Ak Sharma AMIT KUMAR 2015.05.27 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document