Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.
not M-19288 of 2013 Date of decision:
26. 08.2013 Inderjit Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Neeraj Yadav, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the complainant.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioners Inderjit Kaur and Ashok Mahajan have preferred the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.59 dated 17.05.2013, registered at Police Station 'E' Division, Amritsar City, under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners are parents-in-law of the complainant.
They were residing at Amritsar whereas complainant alongwith her husband had been residing at Noida.
On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant contested the bail application and learned counsel for complainant contended that no dowry Malhotra Mamta 2013.08.27 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Criminal Misc.
not M-19288 of 2013 -2- articles have been recovered in this case.
The husband of complainant left to foreign country even without informing the complainant.
From the record, I find that parents-in-law of the complainant were residing at Amritsar whereas, as per the case of the complainant herself, she was residing with her husband at Noida.
As per the application given by the complainant to SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar, on 07.02.2013, her husband came all alone after leaving her at Noida and she came to her parents' house at Amritsar on 22.10.2012.
In the said application, there is no mention if her parents-in-law came to Noida etc.but the FIR was registered on the basis of another detailed application.
The petitioners have already joined the investigation.
Dowry articles are not supposed to be with the petitioners when the complainant and her husband were residing at Noida.
The petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation.
The trial of the case will take long time.
No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the merits of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 05.06.2013, passed by this Court, granting interim bail to the petitioneRs.is made absolute.
26.08.2013 (INDERJIT SINGH) mamta JUDGE Malhotra Mamta 2013.08.27 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh