High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/36880/2017allowed

Surender And ANR v. State Of Haryana And ANR

2018-01-23Mr. Justice Satpal3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1.

Criminal Misc. No.M- 36880 of 2017(O&M) Date of Decision: January 23 , 2018.

Surender and another ...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and another ...... RESPONDENT (s) 2.

Criminal Misc. No. M- 37324 of 2017(O&M).

Ramesh and another ...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners (in CRM No.M-36880 of 2017). Mr. Vikram Lakhlan, Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners (in CRM No.M-37324 of 2017) Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. R.S.Sangwan, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2.

*****

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.

This order shall dispose of CRM No.M-36880 of 2017 (Surender

-2and another v. State of Haryana and another) and CRM No.M-37324 of 2017 (Ramesh and another v. State of Haryana and another). Prayer in these petitions is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.99 dated 05.08.2017 under Sections 147/149/323/342/ 365/354/498A/506 IPC, registered at Police Station Bahal, District Bhiwani. Petitioners Surender and Sudesh in CRM No.M-36880 of 2017 are the brotherin-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani), respectively, of the complainant. Petitioners Ramesh and Molu Ram in CRM No.M-37324 of 2017 are the cousin brother and father, respectively, of the complainant's husband. It is submitted that all the petitioners were afforded the concession of bail pending trial in the abovesaid FIR on 25.08.2017 (Annexure P2).

The offences punishable under Sections 365/354/498A IPC have been added subsequently. The petitioners have thereafter joined investigation. They undertake to face the proceedings and not misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if afforded to them. Therefore, it is prayed that these petitions be allowed. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed these petitions while submitting that serious allegations have been raised against the petitioners. However, it is not denied that all the four petitioners were earlier afforded the concession of bail pending trial on 25.08.2017. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ramesh Kumar, verifies that the offences punishable under Sections 365/354/498A IPC were added subsequently on 05.09.2017. All the petitioners in this case have thereafter joined investigation as well.

None of the petitioners are not reported to be involved in any other criminal case.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioners

-3are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts before 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, these petitions are allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. Petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 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 ) January 23 , 2018.

JUDGE 'om'

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No