Allowed

Prashant Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Feb 2018CRM-M/34032/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding FIR sections 323/498A/506 IPC. The grant was based on the post-filing settlement of the matrimonial dispute and the lack of flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest subject to terms of settlement and Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Prashant Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CRM No.M-34032 of 2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M- 34032 of 2017(O&M) Date of Decision: February 20 , 2018.

¶5

Parshant Kumar

¶6

...... PETITIONER (s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and another

¶9

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

¶11

Present: Mr. Mohan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ashok S.Chaudhary, Addl.AG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶17

¶18

LISA GILL, J.

¶19

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.454 dated 18.08.2017 under Sections 323/498A/506 IPC registered at Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar

¶20

It is submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties on 01.12.2017 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is informed, has been filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2. Statements of the parties at first motion have been recorded, part of the settled amount has been handed over to respondent No.2. Omkar Singh 2018.02.20 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CRM No.M-34032 of 2017

¶22

-2-

¶23

The petitioner undertakes to hand over the rest of the settled amount to respondent No.2 as well as abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement dated 01.12.2017. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Pritam Singh, verifies that the matter has indeed been settled between the parties. The petitioner is not reported to be involved in any other criminal case. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner is likely to abscond, if released on bail.

¶25

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, specifically the settlement arrived at between the parties but without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is considered just and expedient to allow this petition. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶26

Liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to move an appropriate application in case the petitioner does not comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement.

¶27

( LISA GILL ) February 20 , 2018. JUDGE ‘om’

¶28

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶29

Omkar Singh 2018.02.20 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Prashant Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Vs the State of Punjab

Daljit Singh Vs Tarlochan Singh

Atul Chadha Vs State of Punjab & Another

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Amar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.