1. Crl. Misc No. M 34922 OF 2010 Roop Chand & another vs State of Haryana 2. Crl. Misc No. M 38392 of 2010 Balender vs State of Haryana ****** Present : Mr. Anil Kshterpal, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Misc No. M 34922 of 2010 Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc No. M 38392 of 2010. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG Haryana Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the complainant. ******* This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc Nos. M 34922 and 38392 of 2010, as both these petitions arise from the same FIR. Crl. Misc. No. M 38392 of 2010 The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No.632, dated 17.12.2009, registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 313, 120-B, 506, 307 of the IPC, at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Parties are present in Court. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that under no circumstances, it is possible for the petitioner to cohabit with the complainant but the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant in full and final settlement of all her claim of istridhan, dowry, permanent alimony etc., provided the complainant gives divorce to the petitioner. As regards the minor child, learned counsel has stated that if the complainant wants to keep the minor, the petitioner would also make arrangement for that and if she is not willing to do so, the petitioner would take the custody of the child. Crl.Misc. Nos.M 34922 & 38392 of 2010 : 2 : Counsel for the complainant, on the instructions of the complainant, states that she is not interested to terminate the marriage at any cost and wants to prosecute this litigation. She has further declined the offer of any money and has stated that if the petitioner can even point out one fault in her, she would unconditionally give divorce and would not even claim any money. It is not the province of this Court to decide the merits of the case. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has very fairly offered that the petitioner would create a fixed deposit in the name of the minor child, namely, Vansh, for a sum of Rs.5 lacs, and whatever interest accrued thereon would be utilized by the mother for the benefit of the child. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for six weeks' time to create the fixed deposit. I find it to be a fair offer. Consequently, the child would continue to stay with the complainant and the petitioner would have the right to visit the child on the first and third Sunday of every month along with his parents if they so desire to meet the child. Counsel for the complainant has also very fairly stated that the complainant would have no objection if the petitioner and/or his parents come to meet the child. He has further stated that in the application, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, for maintenance the claim regarding the child will be withdrawn. In the circumstances, this petition for grant of regular bail is conditionally allowed and the order dated 3.2.2011 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. The petitioner is directed to hand over the fixed deposit of Rs.5 lacs in the name of the minor child to the complainant Crl.Misc. Nos.M 34922 & 38392 of 2010 : 3 : in the trial Court (where the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C is stated to be pending) on the next date viz. 5.8.2011. The complainant will be at liberty to withdraw the interest on the fixed deposit, if the need so arises for the welfare of the child. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner fails to hand over the fixed deposit to the complainant on the date fixed, this petition would be deemed to have been dismissed and he would be liable for arrest. Crl. Misc No. M 34922 of 2010 The petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.632, dated 17.12.2009, registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 313, 120-B, 506, 307 of the IPC, at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. In view of the order of even date passed in Crl. Misc No. M 38392 of 2010, this petition is allowed and in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Investigating Officer to his satisfaction subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is, however, made clear that in case the son of the petitioners fails to hand over the fixed deposit to the complainant on the date fixed as envisaged in the order passed in Crl. Misc No. M 38392 of 2010, this petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. Registry is directed to place a photostat copy of this order in the connected file. ( AJAY TEWARI ) June 02, 2011. JUDGE `kk'