CRM No.M-17605 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-17605 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision:14.06.2012
Ankur Bhanot and another
......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG Punjab.
Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for the complainant.
***
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral)
Counsel for the parties have been heard. On 06.06.2012, while issuing notice of motion, this Court had passed the following order: “This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 7 dated 8.2.2012 under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C. registered at Police Station D Division, Amritsar City. As per version of the complainant namely Kamini, she had come into contact with the accused/petitioner no.1 namely Ankur Bhanot on the Facebook, wherein he had proposed her for marriage. In pursuance thereto a Roka ceremony was held in Amritsar, wherein, it is alleged that the parents of the complainant had given gifts worth more than Rs.40,000/-. It is also stated that the petitioner had given a golden platinum chain claiming the value of Rs.35,000/-, which later on was found to be worth only Rs.22,000/-. It is further alleged that petitioner no.2 i.e. the mother of Ankur Bhanot thereafter started raising demands for a car as also Rs.5 lacs as cash and it is in pursuance to such complaint that the FIR had been registered.CRM No.M-17605 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the present petitioners had also been granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail vide order dated 10.5.2012 but thereafter vide order dated 28.5.2012 (Annexure P-3) the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected. Learned counsel would refer to the order dated 28.5.2012 to submit that the application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar only on the ground that the gift items alleged to have been received by the petitioners at the time of Roka ceremony had not be returned. Learn ed counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and even refers to the order dated 28.5.2012, wherein it has been noticed that A.S.I. Surjit Kaur had appeared from the concerned Police Station and had made statement with regard to the petitioners having joined the investigation and they being not further required for further investigation. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners have also offered a demand draft dated 8.2.2012 of the value of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and a copy of the same stands appended as Annexure P-I and further states that such draft shall be handed over to the Investigating Officer forthwith.” Learned counsel appearing for the State informs the Court that the petitioners have since joined the investigation and even a draft of Rs.20,000/- has been handed over to the I.O. In the light of such admitted fact, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be necessary for the petitioners to undergo any custodial interrogation. Accordingly, the order dated 06.06.2012, granting the benefit of pre-arrest bail is made absolute. Disposed of.
June 14, 2012 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
harjeet JUDGECRM No.M-17605 of 2012 (O&M) -3-
