High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Raj Kaur @ Sukhraj Kaur & Another vs Gurmeet Kaur on 19 November, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kaur @ Sukhraj Kaur & Another vs Gurmeet Kaur on 19 November, 2008
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH



                  Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-24401 of 2008
                              Date of Decision: November 19, 2008


Raj Kaur @ Sukhraj Kaur & Another
                                                        .....PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS


Gurmeet Kaur
                                                      .....RESPONDENT(S)
                             .      .      .


CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -     Mr. K.S. Kahlon, Advocate, for the
               petitioners.

               Mr. K.S. Sidhu,                   Deputy         Advocate
               General, Punjab.


                             .      .      .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

               While      issuing        notice        of    motion,         the

following has been noticed:-

“This petition has been filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in complaint case
titled „Gurmeet Kaur vs. Balkar Singh & Others
wherein the petitioners have been summoned to stand
trial for commission of offences under Section(s)
304/34 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur,
vide Order, Annexure P-2.

Contention of learned counsel is that for an incident
of 16.2.2006, a complaint was filed on 13.3.2006. The
petitioners have been summoned vide Order dated
20.12.2007. Learned counsel has pointed out that FIR in
regard to same incident was lodged. The allegations in
the FIR are discrepant in regard to the material facts vis-
a-vis the complaint case in which the petitioners seek
bail. While in the FIR, petitioner No.2, Balkar Singh has
been ascribed the role of giving push to the deceased, in
the complaint case, he has been shown armed with Mori
and giving a blow with it. The entire story stands
falsified. Perusal of the post mortem report indicates
death on account of Myocardial Infarction. No injury
Crl. Misc. No. M-24401 of 2008 [2]

was detected on the person of the deceased. Under these
circumstances, the FIR was cancelled.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners

contends that in deference to order dated 30.9.2008,

the petitioners have put in appearance. The

petitioners have been released on bail on furnishing

of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1 lac with one surety

in the like amount each.

Considering the facts and circumstances

of the case noticed above, this petition is allowed.


                                                              (AJAI LAMBA)
November 19, 2008                                                JUDGE
avin