Arun Behal v. State Of Punjab

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 24.02.2015 Arun Behl .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

Present:

Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Roopam Aggarwal, D.A.G., Punjab for the State.

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

**** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The petitioner has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.399 dated 18.10.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station 'A' Division, Amritsar City.

2.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

-24.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on November 26, 2014: - "Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the petitioner is ready to resume cohabitation and amicably settle the disputes with the complainant. Heard.

Issue notice motion to the respondent.

At this stage, Mr. J.S. Sekhon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on behalf of the State & Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, on behalf of complainant, appear, accept notices and seek time to argue the matter. Taking into consideration the matrimonial disputes, the parties are directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 08.12.2014, for amicable settlement, as prayed for. File be sent there forthwith.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction."

5.

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Gulvinder Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. Otherwise also, learned counsel are ad idem that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

6.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as

-3discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by virtue of indicated order of this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement, then the prosecution/complainant would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this Court.

February 24, 2015 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE