Lokesh Sharma v. State Of Punjab And ANR

CRM No.M-2568 of 2017 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M- 2568 of 2017(O&M) Date of Decision: May 16 , 2017.

Lokesh Sharma ...... PETITIONER (s)

Versus

State of Punjab and another ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:

Mr. Sartej S.Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.AG, Punjab.

Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2.

***** LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.71 dated 15.11.2016 under Sections 498A/406 IPC, registered at Police Station Women, Amritsar. It is submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the parties have amicably resolved their entire dispute before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 27.03.2017. Copy of settlement dated 27.03.2017 reflecting the terms and conditions arrived at between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court is attached with this file. As per the Clause 6 (d) of the abovesaid settlement, a demand draft bearing Omkar Singh 2017.05.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-2568 of 2017 [2] No.532700 dated 01.05.2017 for a sum of `5,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India in favour of respondent No.2 - Rashmi Pathak has been handed over to respondent No.2, who is present in Court. She is duly identified by her counsel. It is submitted that the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived between the parties.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there is no objection to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Resham Singh, submits that the petitioner has joined investigation pursuant to order dated 27.01.2017 and he is not required for custodial interrogation. Articles belonging to the complainant/respondent No.2 have been recovered. 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 in the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above especially the settlement arrived at between the parties, but without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 27.01.2017 is made absolute. ( LISA GILL ) May 16 , 2017.

JUDGE 'om'

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Omkar Singh 2017.05.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh