High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surinder Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab on 29 May, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab on 29 May, 2009
      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                         Criminal Misc. No.M-11099 of 2009
                         Date of decision: 29.5.2009


Surinder Kaur and others

                                                         ......Petitioners

                         Versus



State of Punjab

                                                   .......Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA


Present:   Mr.A.S.Gill, Advocate,
           for the petitioners.

           Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.

                  ****


SABINA, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR

No. 12 dated 15.2.2007, under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian

Penal Code (“IPC” for short), registered at Police Station Bilga,

District Jalandhar.

The allegations against the petitioners are that they

along with their co-accused had committed theft in the house of

Gurdev Singh Bahara.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

petitioners have been falsely involved in this case due to their

relationship with co-accused Kulsharan Singh. In fact, entire
Criminal Misc. No.M-11099 of 2009 -2-

recovery of stolen articles has been effected from the co-accused of

the petitioners.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted

that the petitioner were declared proclaimed offenders. Recovery of

entire stolen articles has not been effected so far. The petitioners

are required for custodial interrogation.

Keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to

have been committed by the petitioners, no ground for grant of

anticipatory bail is made out. The petitioners are required for

custodial interrogation and as per the learned State counsel so far

recovery of the entire stolen articles has not been effected in this

case.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(SABINA)
JUDGE

May 29, 2009
anita