Allowed

Vimaljeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Sept 2017CRM-M/22904/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed interim anticipatory bail orders to become absolute. The petitions were for two women involved in a 498-A/34 IPC case. The matter had been settled amicably, and a quashing petition was pending. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The interim orders dated 29.06.2017 and 09.06.2017 were made absolute granting anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

Vimaljeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Date of decision: 28.09.2017

¶3

1. CRM-M-22904-2017

Vimaljeet Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

¶10

2. CRM-M-21602-2017

Daljit Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶18

Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶19

Mr. Saurav Khurana, D.A.G., Punjab.

¶20

Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Anupam Bhrdwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶21

¶22

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

¶23

By this common order, I propose to dispose of above referred two petitions as both are arising out of the same FIR. For brevity facts are being taken from CRM-M-22904-2017.

¶24

Both the petitions that have been preferred for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s) in case FIR No. 13 dated 08.04.2017, under Sections 498-A/406/316/34 IPC registered at Police Station Women,

¶25

Satyawan 2017.09.28 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶26

CRM-M-22904-2017

¶27

-2-

¶28

District Amritsar (Annexure P-1).

¶29

The petitioners in the instant petitions are mother-in -law and sister-in-law of the complainant who had been allowed interim protection by this Court by orders dated 29.06.2017 and 09.06.2017 respectively.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contends that during the integrum, the matter stands compromised between the parties and a petition for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise has already been preferred i.e. CRM-M-36349-2017 titled Harpreet Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another , which is now pending for 28.11.2017.

¶31

This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the complainant.

¶32

In view of the fact that the matter stands amicably settled between the parties, the the petition is allowed and interim orders dated 29.06.2017 and 09.06.2017 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner(s) will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation; will not leave India without permission of the Court and will comply with the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶33

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected

¶34

case.

¶35

28.09.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes. Whether reportable No.

¶36

Satyawan 2017.09.28 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Vimaljeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimaljeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Abhishek @ Abhu & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manish Kumar @ Kala Vs State of Haryana

Tilak Raj Vs State of Punjab

Rohtash and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Daljit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Another

Jagpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.