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 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anju Bala @ Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi vs State Of Haryana on 11 October, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
              CHANDIGARH

                        Crl. Misc. No.M-25875 of 2012(O&M)
                        Date of Decision:.11.10.2012

Anju Bala @ Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi
                                                     ... Petitioner
                        vs.

State of Haryana                                   ... Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

Present:- Mr. G.S. Singhpuria, Advocate
          for the petitioner.

             Mr. Anupam Sharma, AAG Haryana.
                  ---

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Anju Bala @ Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 191 dated 11.8.2008 at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala, for an offence punishable under sections 370 and 371 IPC read with section 34 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a co- accused of the petitioner named Harnek Singh has already stood trial and has been acquitted of the charges. According to him, the whereabouts of the complainant Pooja are not known to the police and on account of her non-appearance, the trial against Harnek Singh ended in acquittal. According to him, the petitioner Anju Bala was not appearing before the court and was declared a proclaimed offender. He further submits that now the petitioner is in custody since 8.4.2012 and the whereabouts of Pooja are still not known.

Crl. Misc. No.M-25875 of 2012 =2= Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the offence under sections 370 and 371 IPC are quite serious where selling of the victim as slave is made punishable. According to him, the petitioner even did not care to stand trial and was declared a proclaimed offender. He further submits that the petitioner is, consequently, not entitled to bail.

A co-accused of the petitioner has already stood trial and his trial has ended in acquittal because the prosecution could not find the complainant. The petitioner is in custody for the last six months and no useful purpose would be served in detaining the petitioner in custody in absence of the complainant. In these circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

October 11,2012                 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK )
Jiten                                   JUDGE