Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Aug 2012CRM-M/16412/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a pre-arrest bail petition under Section 438 CrPC regarding an FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted relief. The court noted a successful mediation and mutual settlement where parties resumed living together, finding no need for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC was allowed, and the petitioner is released pending investigation.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-16412 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-16412 of 2012 Date of decision:23.08.2012

Raj Kumar

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶13

Mr.O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶14

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail by way of instant petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the case arising out of FIR No.85 dated 30.4.2012 under Sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 2.7.2012 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The report dated 22.8.2012 of the Mediator is available on the record of this case.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

¶18

CRM No.M-16412 of 2012 2

¶19

counsel for the complainant are ad idem that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner and the complainant are again living together. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this view of the matter, the present petition deserves to be accepted because the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that though, the petitioner has joined in investigation in compliance of the order dated 2.7.2012 but he is not aware of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is a fit case for extending the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. I say so for more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter.

¶22

Firstly, in compliance of the order dated 2.7.2012 passed by this Court, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency.

¶23

Secondly, as per the report dated 22.8.2012 of Mediator, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the said report is available on the record of this case.

¶24

Thirdly, this Court hope and trust that extending the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner will further facilitate the parties to live together happily.

¶25

The view taken by this Court also finds supports from the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Siddaram Setingappa

¶26

CRM No.M-16412 of 2012

¶27

¶28

Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 (1) RCR (Crl.) 126.

¶29

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

¶30

case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, the order dated 2.7.2012, is made absolute.

¶31

Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed.

¶32

23.08.2012 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE

Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Hooda Vs State of Haryana

Lakhan Paswan Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Naranjan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Siri Ram Goel and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

William Masih Vs State of Punjab

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab