Harpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM No.M-26559 of 2016 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M- 26559 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision: July 17 , 2017.

Harpreet Singh ...... PETITIONER (s)

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. V.K.Kaushal, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

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.63 dated 20.03.2016 under Sections 325/323/354/447/511/ 148/149 IPC registered at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to civil litigation pending between the petitioner and the complainant. During the pendency of this petition it was submitted that as the dispute is between close relatives, there is a possibility of an amicable resolution of the Omkar Singh 2017.07.19 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-26559 of 2016 [2] same. Civil dispute was admittedly pending between the parties. The present petitioner is the brother-in-law (Nandoi) of the complainant. It was noted by this Court on 20.03.2017 that the parties are amenable to a settlement and the matter was adjourned to enable them to draw the terms and conditions of the settlement whereby 1/5th share, for which the complainant is entitled, would be given to her. Learned counsel for the complainant while admitting the civil dispute between the parties, submits that his client has obtained the said share through a civil suit filed by her, therefore there is no question of any compromise at this stage.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jaswinder Singh, submits that the petitioner has joined investigation and he is not required for custodial interrogation. No recovery is to be effected from him. 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 but without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 11.08.2015 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 ) July 17 , 2017.

JUDGE 'om'

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Omkar Singh 2017.07.19 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh