CRM-M 19560 of 2009 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Decided on Oct 08,2009.
Reena Rani and another -- Petitioners
vs.
State of Punjab --Respondent.
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr.Ritesh Pandey,Advocate,for the petitioners
Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat,A,A.G.Punjab.
Mr.Sandeep Chopra.Advocate,for the complainant
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:
The petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail in case
registered vide FIR No.201 dated 24.6.2009 under Sections 498,498-A,
406,506,323,120-B IPC, and subsequently added Section 307 IPC at Police
Station, Jodhewal, District Ludhiana City.
The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of
Sukhwinder Kaur. The present petitioners are jeth and jethani of the
complainant, who was married to one Vijay Kumar on 15.2.2006 and have
a son, named Jatin.
Initially, the petitioners had filed an application for
anticipatory bail when the case was registered under Sections 498,498-
A,406,506,323,120-B IPC, in which vide order dated 03.7.2009, the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, granted interim bail to the
petitioners. Later on, applicants/petitioners moved an application for
CRM-M 19560 of 2009 2
amendment of the application for inserting Section 307 IPC. The
application was allowed and amended petition was taken on record.
However, the same was dismissed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge,
Ludhiana, vide his order dated 14.7.2009.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed
the present petition for anticipatory bail in which notice of motion was
issued on 22.7.2009 and interim bail was granted to the petitioners.
Thereafter, the petitioners have joined the investigation in terms of the
aforesaid order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter-alia, argued that
the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case as the complainant
is residing at Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, whereas the petitioners are
residents of village Ladhewali, District Jalandhar. In order to prove this
fact, they have placed on record Identity Cards Annexures P-1 and P-2. It
is further submitted that while disposing of bail application of co-accused
vide order dated 03.7.2009, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ludhiana had
observed that “the fact of putting kerosene oil upon the complainant also
seems to be concocted version since no fire was ever lit on her body”.
As against this, learned counsels for the respondents have
submitted that there is allegation against the petitioners that they have
participated in putting kerosene oil on the complainant, but who, as good
luck would have it, escaped un-hurt.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the
petitioners are residing separately and have already joined the investigation,
order dated 22.7.2009 is hereby made absolute.
CRM-M 19560 of 2009 3
It is, however, clarified that nothing observed herein shall be
taken to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
The petition stands disposed of.
Oct 08 ,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge