Full Text
Translation output
#3 f)y
% 04.08.2011
Present: Mr. S.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APR for the respondent/State.
Complainant in person.
+Bail Appln. 624/2011
This is petition seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 88/2011, P.S. Hari Nagar, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter was referred to the mediation and parties have amicably settled the matter.
In support of this contention, he has relied upon the settlement agreement dated 06'" June, 2011. Complainant denies the averment and she states that in the mediation proceedings, the petitioner No.l had agreed to arrange for a separate accommodation and live with her but he has not performed his part of settlement, therefore, the settlement
^ agreement is non-est. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that they have been falsely implicated because of matrimonial discord and dowry articles have already been returned, as such, he presses for anticipatory bail.
Learned APP, on the contrary, has opposed the anticipatory bail application. She submits that the petitioners have not returned the dowry articles as yet and their custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the dowry articles. Learned APP has referred to the order of learned Additional
Sessions Judge dated 05*^" May, 2011 wherein there is a specific observation that the petitioner is ready to return the dowry articles.
2011:DHC:7004
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
No receipt for return of dowry articles has been given. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for recovery of misappropriated dowry articles. Thus, I do not find any merit in the application for anticipatory bail.
Application is dismissed.
AUGUST 04, 2011 akb
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
2011:DHC:7004
% 04.08.2011
Present: Mr. S.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APR for the respondent/State.
Complainant in person.
+Bail Appln. 624/2011
This is petition seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 88/2011, P.S. Hari Nagar, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter was referred to the mediation and parties have amicably settled the matter.
In support of this contention, he has relied upon the settlement agreement dated 06'" June, 2011. Complainant denies the averment and she states that in the mediation proceedings, the petitioner No.l had agreed to arrange for a separate accommodation and live with her but he has not performed his part of settlement, therefore, the settlement
^ agreement is non-est. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that they have been falsely implicated because of matrimonial discord and dowry articles have already been returned, as such, he presses for anticipatory bail.
Learned APP, on the contrary, has opposed the anticipatory bail application. She submits that the petitioners have not returned the dowry articles as yet and their custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the dowry articles. Learned APP has referred to the order of learned Additional
Sessions Judge dated 05*^" May, 2011 wherein there is a specific observation that the petitioner is ready to return the dowry articles.
2011:DHC:7004
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
No receipt for return of dowry articles has been given. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for recovery of misappropriated dowry articles. Thus, I do not find any merit in the application for anticipatory bail.
Application is dismissed.
AUGUST 04, 2011 akb
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
2011:DHC:7004
JUDGMENT