Allowed

Satpal Bansal and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2014CRM-M/11520/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to petitioners in an FIR punishable under Sections 498-A and 406. Converting interim bail to absolute bail, the court noted the dispute was settled and joined investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was accepted and the existing interim bail was converted into absolute bail.

Satpal Bansal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM No.M-11520 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-11520 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 23.05.2014

¶5

Satpal Bansal and another

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Ms. Amarjit Khurana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶13

Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶16

Petitioners-Satpal Bansal son of Sant Ram and his wife Saroj Rani @ Seema, have preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.19 dated 06.03.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406, by the police of Police Station Women Cell, Bathinda.

¶17

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶18

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going

¶19

through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the

¶20

Kumar Naresh 2014.05.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CRM No.M-11520 of 2013 (O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

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 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Ram Chand Gupta, J.) on April 26, 2013: -

¶25

“ ` 20,000/- have been paid by petitioners to father of respondent no.2-complainant, who has come present, in the Court today as per order dated 12.04.2013 of this Court.

¶26

It has again been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that husband of complainant i.e. son of petitioners is ready to rehabilitate respondent no.2 in the matrimonial home. Husband of respondent no.2complainant has also come present and offered to rehabilitate her. Hence, it has been stated that matter be sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for settlement.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has agreed to this proposal of counsel for petitioner.

¶28

Hence, both the parties are directed to appear before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 09.05.2013 for making efforts for settlement.

¶29

Adjourned to 17.07.2013.

¶30

However, in the meantime, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case of their arrest, they shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶31

At the very outset, on instructions from HC Angrej Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. Moreover, learned counsel are ad idem that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the petitioners have already filed the petition bearing CRM-M No.16555 of 2014 titled Satpal Bansal and others Vs. State of

¶32

Kumar Naresh 2014.05.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶33

CRM No.M-11520 of 2013 (O&M) -3-

¶34

Punjab and another, for quashing the impugned FIR, on the basis of compromise.

¶35

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners, by virtue of order dated April 26, 2013, by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶36

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this respect.

¶37

May 23, 2014 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

¶38

Kumar Naresh 2014.05.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Satpal Bansal and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal Bansal and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jagsir Sharma @ Jagveer Singh Sharma & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Bharat Singh Bura Vs State of Haryana

Mangal Singh and Anr. Vs Dharam Bir and Ors.

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurnam Singh @ Gama Vs State of Punjab