High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Chanchal Maan vs State of Haryana and another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 November 2017 · Citation: (2017) 11 P&H CK 0008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jitendra Chauhan
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-438>Section 438</a> - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-34>Section 34</a>, <a href=1767-498A>Section
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
2326 of 2017 (O&M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

30 paragraphs · 247 words
1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 438

Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.561 dated 28.12.2016

registered under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC

at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari.

2.

On 04.10.2017 this Court had passed the following

order:-

"xx Parties heard in person.

The petitioner is allowed to join investigation.

Post again on 03.11.2017.

Meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner by the

Arresting Officer, he shall be released on interim bail subject

to the following conditions:-

1.That he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

2.That he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of

the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to

the Court or to any police officer and;

3.That he shall not leave India without prior permission of the

Court."

3.

It is contended that in pursuance of the order dated

04.10.2017, the petitioner has joined the investigation.

4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the

petitioner has joined the investigation and he is not required for

custodial interrogation. Except one gold ring, all dowry articles have

been recovered.

5.

In view of above, the order dated 04.10.2017 passed

by this Court is made absolute, subject to furnishing of bail-

bonds/surety bonds by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the

CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

6.

The petition stands allowed.