Mani Ram Goyal v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-21.7.2020 MANI RAM GOYAL ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Vikas Behl, Senior Advocate with Ms. Drishtana Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

(the aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in Virtual Court) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .

1. The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.51 dated 14.2.2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Sector 14, District Panchkula.

2. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, following order was passed:- "The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.51 dated 14.2.2020 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Sector 14, District Panchkula.

The matter infact arises from a matrimonial dispute amongst Dr. Sonu Goyal and her husband Dr. Yashik Bansal. Initially, Dr. Sonu Goyal lodged FIR No. 60 dated 31.3.2018 under

(2) Sections 406/420/498- A/506/354/120-B IPC against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. During the course of investigation of the said FIR, the father of Dr. Sonu Goyal had furnished certain bills pertaining to purchase of jewellery which upon verification by the police were found to be forged. Resultantly, the present FIR came to be lodged at the instance of ASI Partap Singh.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matrimonial dispute infact stands resolved amongst the parties and the petiton under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has already been filed in which statement of the parties in the first instance was recorded on 12.3.2020 (Annexure P-13). It has further been submitted that pursuant to the said compromise even the husband of said Dr. Sonu Goyal had been granted bail by this Court mainly on account of the fact that a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act has been filed as would be evident from order dated 16.3.2020 (Annexure P-14). The learned counsel has submitted that since the matter originates from a matrimonial dispute which has been resolved, it will be in the fitness of things that the petitioner be granted the concession of anticipatory bail especially since he is willing to cooperate with the police in all regards.

Notice of motion for 21.7.2020.

At this stage, Shri Deepak Sabherwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana to whom an advance copy of the petition has been served, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

(3) Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. "

3. Learned State counsel has today informed that pursuant to order dated 27.5.2020, the petitioner has since joined investigation.

4. Bearing in mind the nature of allegation against the petitioner and the fact that the matrimonial dispute of the daughter of the petitioner and her husband stands resolved and that the petitioner has already joined investigation, his custodial interrogation is not warranted. The petition, as such, is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 27.5.2020 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon to do so and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 21.7.2020 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No