Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gian Kaur vs State Of Haryana on 21 February, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-38032 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 21, 2012.
Gian Kaur
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Haryana.
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana.
for respondent-State.
*****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.81 dated 11.11.2011 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sector-19, Panchkula.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
CRM No.M-38032 of 2011 2
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 16.12.2011 passed the following order:-
"Petitioner is a lady who seeks the concession of pre- arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Jaspreet Singh and Vikramjit Singh, alleging that Gurcharan Kaur introduced the complainants to Jujhar Singh, the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner and her son Avtar Singh at Panchkula, as dealing with immigration. A total sum of Rs.24 lacs is alleged to have been paid through Jujhar Singh, petitioner and her son to Vishal, Romy and Sandeep, as per original complaint submitted to Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, annexure P-2.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that a different version has been given by the complainant Jaspreet Singh in FIR registered on November 11, 2011 at Panchkula. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are vague. Offence, if any, could have been committed by the other male family members of the petitioner. No money was actually handed over to the petitioner.
Notice of motion for February 10, 2012.
Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioner will join investigation on December 24, 2011 and January 7, 2012 and in case of her doing so, she will be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer."
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 16.12.2011. It has also been contended that even as per the allegations, no payment was made to the present petitioner and payment, if any, was made to co-accused i.e husband of present petitioner, who has already been arrested and has been released on bail.
CRM No.M-38032 of 2011 3
It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that though the petitioner has joined the investigation, however, recovery is yet to be effected.
Petitioner is a lady. There is no allegation of making any payment to her. Allegations regarding payment are against her husband who has already been arrested in this case. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that she is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.
Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner Gian Kaur is accepted and order dated 16.12.2011 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 21, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.