Shashi Rani vs State Of Punjab on 26 February, 2009

Crl.Misc.No.M-33309 of 2008                                               1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH.


                                        Crl.Misc.No.M-33309 of 2008
                                        Date of Decision: 26.2.2009

Shashi Rani                                                 .....Petitioner

                                 Vs.

State of Punjab                                             ....Respondent

                                 ....

CORAM :       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

                                 ****

Present :     Mr. Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab.
                               ....

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is for grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No.156

dated 12.11.2008, registered under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC, at Police

Station Division No.2, Jalandhar.

Vide order dated 9.1.2009, it was directed that in the event of

her arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to her complying

with the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined

investigation and is cooperating with the police.

Counsel for the State of Punjab, on instructions from Surjit

Singh, ASI, Police Station Division No.2, Jalandhar,submits that though, the

petitioner has joined investigation, a gold ear ring is still to be recovered.

In response to the aforementioned allegation, counsel for the
Crl.Misc.No.M-33309 of 2008 2

petitioner submits that the petitioner is a maid servant and there is no

question of her having misappropriated the aforementioned gold ear ring.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has joined investigation. The failure to effect the

recovery of a pair of gold ear rings would not dis-entitle her to the grant of

anticipatory bail. There is a tendency in matrimonial disputes to level false

and exaggerated allegations of dowry/articles entrusted to in-laws. The

question, whether the petitioner was entrusted with a pair of gold ear rings

or not, would be determined during the trial. The failure of the prosecution,

to effect the recovery of a pair of gold ear rings, would not disentitle the

petitioner to the grant of pre-arrest bail. As a result, the order dated

9.1.2009 is made absolute, upto the filing of the challan, whereafter the

petitioner would be required to seek regular bail.

This petition stands disposed of accordingly.

26.2.2009                                            (RAJIVE BHALLA)
GS                                                        JUDGE