Jai Parkash vs State of Haryana

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 133 dated 22.05.2013, under Sections 366 /376 /506 /34 IPC, registered at police station Julana, District Jind. 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, Jind dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 17.06.2013 passed the following order:-

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that no active participation of the petitioner is alleged in FIR except that threat was given by the petitioner that the prosecutrix must perform marriage with Bhukanwar. Thereafter, the petitioner threatened the family members of the prosecutrix for giving Rs. 35,000/- as fee of the counsel.

Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner threatened the prosecutrix and recovery of Rs. 35,000/- is also to be made from the petitioner. Counsel contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of concession of anticipatory bail.

On considering the statement made by the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view, that the petitioner should be permitted to participate in the investigation and that a direction be issued to the petitioner to join the investigation before the Investigating Officer ASI Ranbir Singh, Police Station, Julana, District Jind on 28.06.2013 at 10.00 AM. To come up after consideration on 13.08.2013.

The petitioner shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating/Arresting Officer, if his request is required.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 17.06.2013. It is further contended that investigation in this case has already been completed and challan filed.

This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent-State, on instruction from ASI Ranvir Singh. Bail application is not opposed.

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.

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Jai Parkash is accepted and order dated 17.06.2013 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.