Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1322 (PNJ)

Pankaj Dhiman v. State of Haryana

2012-09-27

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.43 dated 29.11.2011, under Sections 498A/406/323/506/34 IPC, registered at police station Mahila Thana, Sonipat, Haryana. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 08.12.2011 passed the following order:- “Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Jyoti, his wife, alleging that the petitioner and his family members had been indulging in assaulting and maltreating her. The petitioner is alleged to have slapped and kicked the complainant on different occasions. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to resume cohabitation unconditionally with the complainant. Notice of motion for February 24, 2012. Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioner will join investigation on December 17, 2011 and December 24, 2011 and in case of his doing so, he will be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Thereafter, the petitioner will appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 6, 2012. Notice be issued to respondent no.2 for January 6, 2012 to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.25000/- to respondent no.2 on said date before the Mediator in order to enable her to meet the traveling and other misc. expenses. For awaiting the report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, to come up on the date fixed.” 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 08.12.2011. He has also stated that petitioner is ready to handover all the articles to the Investigating Officer as per the list submitted by respondent no.2-complainant. 5. It may also be mentioned here that parties are having a small child. Efforts were made to get the matter reconciled. Parties are directed to appear before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. However, settlement could not be arrived at. 5. It may also be mentioned here that parties are having a small child. Efforts were made to get the matter reconciled. Parties are directed to appear before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. However, settlement could not be arrived at. Though petitioner was ready to keep the respondent no.2 and the child in the matrimonial home and however, respondent no.2 was not ready to live with the petitioner. Even minor child, aged just three years was thrown on the husband by respondent no.2 in the Court itself and now, the child is being looked after by petitioner-husband. 6. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 7. Hence, in view of the same and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Pankaj Dhiman is accepted and order dated 08.12.2011 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 8. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.