Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gian Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab on 28 February, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-5827 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CRM No.M-5827 of 2013(O&M)
Gian Kaur and another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
(2) CRM No.M-5020 of 2013(O&M)
Narinder Kaur @ Bholi .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
Date of Decision:28.02.2013
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: ASI Hakam Singh, the investigating officer.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) As, identical points for consideration to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners-Gian Kaur, Paramjit Singh and Narinder Kaur @ Bholi are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, in order to avoid the repetition of facts.
2. The petitioners have directed the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, by virtue of FIR No.86 dated 14.12.2012, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police CRM No.M-5827 of 2013 2 Station Nawan Gaon, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
3. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.
4. After perusing the record with the help of the investigating officer, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.
5. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on February 21, 2013 in CRM No.M-5827 of 2013:-
"Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the marriage of Harneet Kaur, daughter of complainant Kashmir Singh Garcha, was solemnized with Onkar Singh (son of the petitioner) in a very simple manner. The petitioners are her parents-in-law and have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. The argument is that Onkar Singh (husband of Harneet Kaur) was arrested, remained in police custody for two days and all the dowry articles were recovered from him. Subsequently, he was released on regular bail on 14.01.2013 by the Magistrate. Moreover, the very vague and general allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned and no indicated offences are made our against them.
Heard.
Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 28.02.2013.
Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to his satisfaction."
Similar order was passed by this Court on February 14, 2013 in 2nd CRM No.M-5827 of 2013 3 petition bearing CRM No.M-5020 of 2013.
6. At the very outset, the investigating officer has acknowledged the factual matrix and stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. As per investigating officer, there is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Petitioners-Gian Kaur and Paramjit Singh are parents-in-law, whereas petitioner-Narinder Kaur @ Bholi is sister-in-law of Harneet Kaur, daughter of the complainant Kashmir Singh Garcha. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not submitted the final police report(challan), so, the conclusion of trial would naturally take a long time.
7. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are hereby accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, vide orders dated February 21, 2013 and February 14, 2013 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection.
February 28, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE