High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinderpal Kaur And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 7 December, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinderpal Kaur And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 7 December, 2009
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH




                               Criminal Misc M- 23208 of 2009

                               Date of decision: 7.12.2009


Narinderpal Kaur and anr                                 ...Petitioners

                         Versus

State of Punjab                                          ...Respondent


Present:    Mr AK Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr PS Grewal, AAG Punjab.
            Mr JS Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.


S.S.SARON, J.

Heard counsel for the parties.

This petition has been filed seeking pre-arrest bail in a

case registered against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 406

and 498A IPC.

The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of

Sukhjit Kaur who was married to Jatinderpal Singh Virk. Petitioner-1 is the

married sister-in-law of the complainant – Sukhjit Kaur and petitioner-2 is

the husband of petitioner-1.

Cr Misc M- 23208 of 2009
2

On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the State had

submitted that cancellation report was ready and was likely to be filed

before the Ilaqa Magistrate. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions,

has submitted that the same has not been filed before the Ilaqa Magistrate.

He, however, submits that keeping in view that cancellation report is being

prepared, the custody of the petitioners is not required for the purposes of

investigation.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that an

amount of Rs 1.00 lakh, gold ornaments and Passport of the complainant,

besides other house-hold articles are yet to be recovered.

The arrest of the petitioners was stayed by this Court vide order

dated 27.8.2009.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter and

keeping in view the fact that a cancellation report has been prepared which

is being filed as also the fact that the custody of the petitioners is not

required for the purposes of investigation, it would be just and expedient

that the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioners, in the

event of their arrest, on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to

the satisfaction of the arresting/IO, shall be admitted to bail. They shall,

however, join investigation as and when called and shall abide by the

conditions provided under Section 438(2) CrPC.

The complainant may pursue her other remedies in accordance

with law.

7.12.2009                                             ( S.S.SARON )
ASR                                                        Judge