Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Kaur vs State Of Haryana on 2 July, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-7405 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-7405 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 02.07.2013
Balbir Kaur
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gourav Verma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Balbir Kaur wife of Jagir Singh, unfortunate mother-in-law of complainant Ranjeet Kaur, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against her along with her husband Jagir Singh (father-in-law) and son Jaswinder Singh (husband of the complainant), vide FIR No.9 dated 19.01.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 328, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC, by the police of Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the CRM No.M-7405 of 2013 (O&M) 2 entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Mahesh Grover, J.) on April 22, 2013:-
"Contends that even the reading of FIR would disclose that the complainant and her husband were residing separately and the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the complainant and the dispute has arisen on account of a marital discord between the complainant and her husband.
Notice of motion for 2.7.2013.
In the meantime, the arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed subject to the following conditions :-
i) She will make herself available for investigation as and when required to do so.
ii) She will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court.
iii) She will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police official."
5. At the very outset, on the instructions from ASI Shamsher Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. She is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. The final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that initially the present case was registered against the petitioner, her husband Jagir Singh, son Jaswinder Singh, Rajinder Kaur @ Depinder Kaur @ Babby (sister-in-law) and her husband Tarlochan Singh, levelling similar allegations. The allegations alleged by the complainant against her sister- in-law Rajinder Kaur and her husband Tarlochan Singh were found to be false and they were exonerated by the police. Very vague and general CRM No.M-7405 of 2013 (O&M) 3 allegations are assigned to the petitioner, who is mother-in-law of the complainant. All the allegations and specific overt-act are attributed to the main accused Jaswinder Singh (husband of the complainant), who was arrested, interrogated by the police and still is in judicial custody.
7. Moreover, since Jagir Singh (husband of the petitioner), (father-in-law of the complainant), has already been allowed the concession of regular bail by the Court of Sessions, so, I see no reason not to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner, under the same set of circumstances.
8. 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 petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, by virtue of order dated April 22, 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 petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of her bail, in this respect.
July 02, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE