Amarjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1070783
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-26-2013
AppellantAmarjit Kaur
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
crm-m no.36019 of 2012 (o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm-m no.36019 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision: march 26, 2013 amarjit kaur …petitioner versus state of punjab …respondent coram: hon’ble mr. justice naresh kumar sanghi present: mr. viney puri, advocate, for mr. chahan singh, advocate, for the petitioner. mr. piyush bansal, dag, punjab, for the respondent. naresh kumar sanghi, j.1. prayer in this petition, filed under section 438, cr.p.c., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, amarjit kaur, wife of balwinder singh bhullar, resident of house not cb-209/18, near bhai ghanhiya j.gurudwara, new chahal nagar, phagwara, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under sections 377, 406, 498-a and 511 read with section 34, ipc, in a case arising out of fir no.58, dated 13.9.2012, registered at police station, women cell, jalandhar city.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the complainant has already surrendered before the learned area judicial magistrate and his application for regular bail is pending consideration. he further submits that the crm-m no.36019 of 2012 (o&m) 2 petitioner has been implicated as an accused just to widen the array of the accused. he further contends that in compliance of the order dated 25.1.2013, passed by this court, the petitioner did join the investigation and fully cooperated with the investigating agency.3. learned counsel for the state on instructions from asi sukhwinder pal singh of police station, women cell, jalandhar, submits that the petitioner did join the investigation and no more required by the investigating agency. however, he submits that the ornaments alleged to have been entrusted to the accused, could not be recovered. he concedes that the husband of the complainant was arrested and released on bail.4. heard.5. keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 25.1.2013, whereby ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, is made absolute. she shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under section 438(2), cr.p.c. (naresh kumar sanghi) march 26, 2013 judge pkapoor
Judgment:

CRM-M No.36019 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.36019 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 26, 2013 Amarjit Kaur …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. Viney Puri, Advocate, for Mr. Chahan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Bansal, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Amarjit Kaur, wife of Balwinder Singh Bhullar, resident of House not CB-209/18, Near Bhai Ghanhiya J.Gurudwara, New Chahal Nagar, Phagwara, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 377, 406, 498-A and 511 read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.58, dated 13.9.2012, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jalandhar City.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the complainant has already surrendered before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate and his application for regular bail is pending consideration. He further submits that the CRM-M No.36019 of 2012 (O&M) 2 petitioner has been implicated as an accused just to widen the array of the accused. He further contends that in compliance of the order dated 25.1.2013, passed by this Court, the petitioner did join the investigation and fully cooperated with the investigating agency.

3. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Sukhwinder Pal Singh of Police Station, Women Cell, Jalandhar, submits that the petitioner did join the investigation and no more required by the investigating agency. However, he submits that the ornaments alleged to have been entrusted to the accused, could not be recovered. He concedes that the husband of the complainant was arrested and released on bail.

4. Heard.

5. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 25.1.2013, whereby ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, is made absolute. She shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2), Cr.P.C. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) March 26, 2013 JUDGE Pkapoor