High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/33657/2016allowed

Dano Bai And ANR v. State Of Punjab

2016-11-22Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

GAURAV ARORA 2016.11.30 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-33657 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33657 of 2016 Date of decision : 22.11.2016 Dano Bai and anr.

....Petitioners versus State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Anmol Grewal, DAG, Punjab Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate for the complainant.

**** RITU BAHRI , J.

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, in a case arising out of F.I.R No. 20 of 06.07.2016 under Section 406/498-A/323/24 IPC, registered at P.S. Women Cell, District Ferozepur. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel submits that the petitioners are ready to bring back the complainant to matrimonial home. However, on 17.11.2016, neither the petitioners were present in the Court nor litigation expenses have been deposited till date, which shows that the petitioners are not ready to compromise the matter. Complainant was present in the Court along with her father. This Court, thereafter, directed the petitioners to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant on the next date of hearing.

Crl. Misc. No. M-33657 of 2016 -2Today also, learned counsel for the complainant has informed the Court that petitioners have not paid Rs.40,000/-. Further petitioners are also not present in the Court.

Learned State counsel on instruction from the Investigating Officer has informed the Court that the petitioners had already joined the investigation and is no longer further required for custodial interrogation. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner No. 1 is mother-in-law of the complainant and has no role to play, order dated 17.08.2016 passed by this Court is made absolute qua petitioner No. 1 only and the petition qua petitioner No. 2 is dismissed. Petitioner No. 1 shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C However, petitioner No. 1 is at liberty to file fresh bail bonds after presentation of the challan.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. 22.11.2016 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No