Bijoy Kumar Aggarwal and Another vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As, identical points for consideration to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions bearing CRM No. M-23844 of 2012, titled as Bijoy Kumar Aggarwal and another Versus State of Haryana (for brevity "the 1st case") and CRM No. M-25877 of 2012, titled as Harsh Vardhan Aggarwal Versus State of Haryana (for short "the 2nd case"), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition. The petitioners have directed the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No. 423 dated 19.07.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Civil Lines Hisar, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (M.M.S. Bedi, J.) passed the following order on August 09, 2012 in the 1st case:-

Petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of Shweta Aggarwal who had filed a complaint under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323/34 IPC in the Court u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The FIR has been registered on the basis of the said complaint.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant had agreed for divorce with mutual consent but on account of terms having not been finally settled, she has opted to pressurize the petitioners by launching the prosecution.

Notice of motion for September 21, 2012.

Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioners will join investigation on August 18, 2012 and in case of their doing so, they will be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the investigating agency to effect recovery, in accordance with law.

Sequelly, similar order was passed in 2nd case on August 28, 2012.

At the very outset, on the instructions from ASI Randhir Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. Moreover, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. As per report dated 05.08.2013 of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the parties have amicably settled their disputes, as per terms & conditions contained therein. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal cases. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Since, even the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan), so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of orders dated August 09, 2012 and August 28, 2012 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners violate any terms & conditions of the compromise and do not cooperate or join the investigation, then the complainant/prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant context.