High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/34578/2016allowed

Damanjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2017-05-11Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

CRM-M-34578-2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34578-2016 Date of Decision:- 11.05.2017 Damanjit Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. APS Gill, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Harpreet Singh Brar, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Mediator.

**** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in a case arising out of FIR No.109 dated 19.08.2016, registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC.

Vide order dated 03.12.2016, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre to enable the parties to settle the disputes and they were directed to appear before the mediation centre of this Court on 14.12.2016. As per the report of the mediator, the parties have not been able to resolve Naresh Kumar 2017.05.18 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh their disputes.

CRM-M-34578-2016 -2Learned State counsel, on instructions from S.I. Kulwant Kaur, has informed that about 8.5 tolas of gold articles are still to be recovered from the present petitioner.

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 28.09.2016, passed by this Court whereby the ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner is made absolute, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposit a sum of `3 lacs in the shape of FDR in the name of complainant, before the trial Court, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner 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.

It is made clear that the decision with regard to release of the above-said amount will be seen by the trial Court at the final stage. Further, the Registry is directed to refund the demand draft of `25,000/- to the petitioner and the petitioner is directed to make fresh demand draft `25,000/-, which shall be handed over to the complainant in the trial Court, on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. May 11, 2017 ( RITU BAHRI ) naresh.k JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Naresh Kumar 2017.05.18 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh