Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Riya Malhotra vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 15 December, 2017

Author: Inderjit Singh

Bench: Inderjit Singh

                                                                 -1-
CRM-M-36679-2017


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-M-36679-2017 (O & M)
                                         Date of Decision: 15.12.2017

Riya Malhotra

                                                          ... Petitioner
                                       Versus

State of Punjab and another

                                                         ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:    Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Ayush Sarna, AAG, Punjab.

            Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate,
            for respondent No.2.

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner-Riya Malhotra has filed this petition under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.156 dated 20.06.2015, registered at Police Station Division No.5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 201 of IPC added later on.

Notice of motion was issued in this case. Learned State counsel put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and complainant also appeared through her counsel.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2017 23:03:00 ::: -2- CRM-M-36679-2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 admitted that parties have effected compromise and quashing petition on the basis of compromise has already been filed.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending her to custody. Finding merit in this petition, the same is allowed. It is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail subject to her furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.




15.12.2017                                                    (INDERJIT SINGH)
parveen kumar                                                     JUDGE



Note:           Whether speaking/reasoned                :      Yes
                Whether reportable                       :      No




                                   2 of 2
                ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2017 23:03:02 :::