CRM No.M-16083 of 2014 & -1- CRM No.M-16542 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM No.M-16083 of 2014 Om Parkash ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent (2) CRM No.M-16542 of 2014 Pooja ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent Date of Decision: - 26.05.2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitiones. Mr. Kartar Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. Balraj Singh Rathee, Advocate for the complainant. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) As identical points to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of indicated criminal petitions bearing CRM No.M-16083 of 2014 titled Om Parkash Vs. State of Haryana (for brevity “the 1st case”.) and CRM Kumar Naresh 2014.05.29 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-16083 of 2014 & -2- CRM No.M-16542 of 2014 No.M-16542 of 2014 titled Pooja Vs. State of Haryana (in short “2 nd case), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts.
2. Petitioners, have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them along with other co-accused, vide FIR No.42 dated 12.04.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Bapoli, District Panipat.
3. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.
4. 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 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 May 12, 2014, in 1st case :- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the marriage of Pooja,daughter of the petitioner was solemnized with Anil son of Shiv Charan on 13.11.2011, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Her in-laws were greedy person and started harassing and treating her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. The argument is that on 02.06.2013, complainant-Shiv Charan attempted to commit rape on Pooja and she reported the matter to the police, where a criminal case was registered against the complainant-Shiv Charan (father in-law) and his son Anil Kumar (husband), vide FIR No.276 dated 02.06.2013 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 376, 511 and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat. Thereafter, registration of the FIR, Pooja is residing with the petitioner and pursuing her case against her in- laws. She has also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 08.11.2013 against the family Kumar Naresh 2014.05.29 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-16083 of 2014 & -3- CRM No.M-16542 of 2014 members of her in-laws. She has also filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The argument is that since Pooja was residing with her father (petitioner) ten months prior to the present occurrence, so, question of abetting the suicide of Anil Kumar did not arise at all. Therefore, petitioner has been falsely implicated being the father of Pooja wife of Anil Kumar (husband) in this case by the complainant in order to wreak vengeance. The argument further proceeds that Roshni Devi wife of the petitioner and Parveen were granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge vide orders dated 28.04.2014 and 01.05.2014 respectively. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 26.05.2014. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of `25,000/- to his satisfaction.”. 6. Sequelly, similar order was passed on May 15, 2014, in 2nd case, as well.
7. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Pawan Kumar, learned State Counsel, has acknowledged the relevant 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. 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.
8. 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 petitions for anticipatory bail are accepted. The interim bails already granted to the petitioners by this Kumar Naresh 2014.05.29 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-16083 of 2014 & -4- CRM No.M-16542 of 2014 Court, by virtue of orders dated May 12, 2014 (in 1st case) & May 15, 2014 (in 2 case), are hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of nd 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. May 26, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE Kumar Naresh 2014.05.29 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh