Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 26 July, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
CRM No.M-9390 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 9390 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: July 26, 2012.
Mohinder Kaur.
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Punjab.
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Mandeep S.Sachdeva,
Advocate, for the complainant.
*****
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.7 dated 24.01.2012, under Sections 420/209/465/467/468/471/120B IPC, registered at police station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar.
CRM No.M-9390 of 2012 2
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, Jalandhar dismissing bail application filed by the petitioner.
This Court while issuing notice of motion on 30.03.2012 passed the following order:-
"Crl.M.No.19602 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-9390 of 2012 It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready to call her son from abroad to reconcile the dispute with the complainant. It is further contended that petitioner has not committed any forgery and that if the property had already been attached in proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by learned trial Court, the same will remain under attachment.
Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 26.4.2012.
However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case she is arrested, she shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
At this stage, Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate, who is present in Court, puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant." Later on a statement was given on behalf of petitioner that she is ready to give statement before the concerned court in which civil suit filed by respondent-complainant is pending that she was having no objection if the CRM No.M-9390 of 2012 3 transfer deed in her favour is cancelled and the following order was passed on 24.05.2012:-
"It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready to give statement before the concerned court in which civil suit filed by respondent-complainant is pending, that petitioner is having no objection if the transfer deed in her favour is cancelled.
On request, adjourned to 05.07.2012.
Interim order to continue."
However, instead of complying with the abovesaid order, learned counsel for petitioner argued that the attachment order was passed by learned trial court against son of the petitioner subject to furnishing the list of properties and however, as no list of property was furnished, there was no attachment against son of petitioner.
The fact remains that son of petitioner is absconding. He was declared proclaimed offender. His property was attached under Section 83 Cr.P.C. The property belonged to son of petitioner was later on transferred by him in her name. She had taken different stands before this Court. At the time of issuing notice of motion she had stated that she was ready to call her son from abroad to settle the dispute. Later on she had given statement that she was ready to get the sale deed of property belonging to her son in her favour cancelled by giving statement in the concerned court in which civil suit is pending. However, even the said order was not complied with by the petitioner.
Hence, in view of these facts, she is not entitled for extra- CRM No.M-9390 of 2012 4 ordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Mohinder Kaur is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.
Interim order dated 30.03.2012 already granted in her favour stands vacated.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 26, 2012. JUDGE 'om'