Judgment:
CRM not M-34477 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.
Misc.
not M- 34477 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: December 4, 2012.
Tarlok Singh and another.....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana.....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Deepak Manchanda, 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.221 dated 10.08.2011, under Sections 498A/302/307 IPC, registered at police station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on CRM not M-34477 o”
2. behalf of the petitioneRs.This Court while issuing notice of motion on 5.11.2012 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.65856 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.not M-34477 of 2012 Contends that there are only general allegations against petitioners-accused and that marriage was more than seven years old.
It is further contended that challan was filed against husband of the deceased only and, however, petitioners have been summoned only by learned trial Court by allowing application of prosecution filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.Further contends that petitioners are ready to appear before learned trial Court and face trial.
Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 4.12.2012.
In the meantime, petitioners are directed to appear before learned trial Court within two weeks from today and if they so appear and apply for bail, learned trial Court is directed to admit them to interim bail subject to any condition that may deem to be imposed by it.”
It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners that they have already appeared before learned trial Court pursuant to said order and admitted to interim bail.
It is further stated by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner undertakes to appear before learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and face trial.
This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for CRM not M-34477 o”
3. respondent-State as well as by learned counsel for complainant.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are 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 Tarlok Singh and Harbhajan Kaur is accepted and order dated 05.11.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners is, hereby, made absolute subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court.
The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 4, 2012.
JUDGE ‘om’