JUDGMENT : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation. 2. This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 10 dated 23.1.2021, under Sections 420 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Payal. 3. The dispute was with regard to the accused assuring the complainant to send his son to Canada and getting a job for him. The husband of the petitioner was arrested on 27.1.2021. Thereafter a compromise was entered. The petitioner and her husband agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to the complainant. On the basis of the compromise, the husband of the petitioner applied for bail which was granted on 2.2.2021. The payment of Rs.7,15,000/- was made but subsequently inability was shown to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,35,000/-. 4. On the last date, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to have instructions as to whether the petitioner is ready to pay the balance amount as per compromise. 5. Today, on instructions learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the balance amount as per the compromise within ten days. 6. Learned counsel for the State though opposes the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail but in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner could not make any serious objection. 7. The parties were known to each other. Apart from other things, the main bone of contention was refund of the amount paid for sending the son of the complainant abroad. As the matter has been compromised, no useful purpose would be served by depriving the liberty of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail subject to payment of balance amount within ten days from today. The petitioner shall join the investigation within 15 days from today. He shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 9. The petition is disposed of. 10. In case the petitioner fails to pay the balance amount as offered today, the pre-arrest bail granted shall automatically be vacated without reference to the Court. 11. In case of failure of the petitioner to join investigation, the State shall be at liberty to move an application for re-calling of the order.