Criminal Misc. No. M-1427 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Criminal Misc. No. M-1427 of 2009 Date of Decision: 2.3.2009 Dharam Pal Jain and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondent AND 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-2336 of 2009 Sunil Jain …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Saurav Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners (In both Criminal Misc. Nos.M-1427 of 2009 and M-2336 of 2009). Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the complainant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, two petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. Nos. M-1427 of 2009 titled as “Dharampal Jain and Another v. State of Punjab and Another” and M-2336 of 2009 titled as “Sunil Jain v. State of Criminal Misc. No. M-1427 of 2009 2 Punjab” under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail by the petitioners, will be decided together. On 19.1.2009, this Court had passed the following order in Criminal Misc. No. M-1427 of 2009:- “It is a case where a compromise was arrived between the parties but was not adhered to by the husband. The allegation is that compromise was violated at the behest of the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners state that the petitioners are still ready and willing to abide by the compromise arrived between the parties. Counsel further states that in case complainant Kumut Jain appears in this Court, the compromise can be given effect too. To show bonafide, the petitioners are ready and willing to bear expenses for appearance of the complainant Kumut Jain in the Court including engaging of counsel by her. To prove their bonafide, the petitioners shall deposit Rs.25,000/- in the Registry of the Court within seven days from today. The amount shall be disbursed to the complainant. Counsel further submits that on oral prayer complainant Kumut Jain be allowed to be impleaded as party. Counsel is permitted to do so. After the deposit of amount by the petitioners, issue notice of motion. Criminal Misc. No. M-1427 of 2009 3 Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, petitioners shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, only in case petitioners deposit Rs.25,000/- within seven days and order will come into operation thereafter. Petitioners shall join investigation as and when called for. Petitioners shall also abide by the conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Case to come up for further hearing on 6.2.2009.” Counsel for the petitioners has stated that the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, had passed an order dated 13.2.2009 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by way of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Grievance made in the FIR was that husband of the complainant had not kept his word of giving divorce in view of compromise. Counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioners have joined investigation and custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Taking into consideration the fact that the parties have obtained divorce by mutual consent and counsel for the State submitted that custodial interrogation is not required, pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners is affirmed till filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. On submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. petitioners shall furnish regular bail-bonds to the Court concerned. The amount of Criminal Misc. No. M-1427 of 2009 4 Rs.25,000/- deposited in the Registry of this Court in compliance of order dated 19.1.2009 be disbursed to the aggrieved complainant-wife. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 2, 2009 “DK”