← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/4572/2019allowed

Geeta v. State Of Haryana

2019-03-15Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

CRM-M No.4572 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.4572 of 2019 Decided on: 15.03.2019 Geeta ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present :

Mr. Sant Lal Barwala, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR No.1014 dated 06.12.2018, for offence punishable under Sections 384, 389, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') at Police Station Civil Line, Karnal, District Karnal.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner had made a phone call to the complainant and asked him to meet her and thereafter on 20.11.2018, one Satyawan called the complainant and informed him that the petitioner has to go to Karnal to meet him and both the petitioner and Satyawan went to Delhi and the complainant, Satyawan, the petitioner along with one Sanjay had meals together and then, all of them came back to Hisar. On the next day, the petitioner and Sanjay went back and the petitioner along with Satyawan had gone to Hisar and on the next day, he along with Sanjay came to Karnal and then Satyawan, informed the complainant that the petitioner is searching him along with 02 other MOHD YAKUB 2019.03.15 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M No.4572 of 2019 persons and are coming to meet him on his petrol pump. Later on, all these 03 persons informed that the petitioner want to lodge an FIR against the complainant. It is further stated that a demand of Rs.20 lacs was made and the complainant allegedly paid a sum of Rs.13.75 lacs. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no recovery was effected from the petitioner and she is in custody since 21.12.2018 and the investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Jai Narain has not disputed the factual position but opposed the prayer for bail. Without commenting anything on merits of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 21.12.2018; she is not involved in any other case; the investigation is complete; the petitioner is no more required for further investigation and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail of the petitioner, in case she is found involved in any other case or misusing the concession of bail, in any manner. (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 15.03.2019 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2019.03.15 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh