Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raminder Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab on 30 September, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-29519 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-29519 of 2013
Date of Decision:- 30.09.2013
Raminder Kaur and others
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. R.P.S. Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the complainant.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioners-Raminder Kaur wife of Jatinder Singh and others, have preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.2 dated 03.01.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 427 and 506 IPC (the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC was later on deleted), by the police of Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
Kumar Naresh 2013.10.01 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-29519 of 2013 2
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the 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 this Court on September 05, 2013: -
"Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that as soon as complainant tried to take the illegal possession of the plot in dispute, then Raminder Kaur- petitioner No.1 has filed a suit for permanent injunction (Annexure P-2) against him and his wife, in which, the civil Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo, vide order dated 27.02.2013 (Annexure P-4). The argument is that having remained unsuccessful in civil Court, now the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners, in the present case to put pressure and to wreak vengeance.
Heard.
Issue notice of motion to the respondent.
At this stage, Mr. K.S. Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on behalf of the State & Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, on behalf of the complainant, appear, accept notices and seek time to argue the matter.
Adjourned to 30.09.2013 for arguments, at the request of State/complainant counsel.
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 `25,000/- each to his satisfaction."
5. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Baljeet Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Moreover, all Kumar Naresh 2013.10.01 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-29519 of 2013 3 the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of 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 petitioners by this Court, by virtue of order dated September 05, 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 respect.
September 30, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
naresh.k JUDGE
Kumar Naresh
2013.10.01 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh