High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/8188/2020dismissed

Sarita Devi v. State Of Haryana

2020-02-26Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8188-2020 Decided on : 26.02.2020 Sarita Devi . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No.20, dated 18.01.2020, under Section 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 13-17, Panipat, District Panipat.

It has been inter alia contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case and on perusal of the FIR in question, it is evident that no role has been attributed to the petitioner for abetting the suicide of deceased - Rakhi. It has further been submitted that no suicide note was recovered by the police, which could connect the petitioner with the suicide of the deceased. Moreover, it was a case of natural death, as the deceased was a patient of diabetes and had other medical ailments, for which she was regularly undergoing treatment. Hence, a prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail.

Heard and perused the FIR as well as other material on record. A perusal of the FIR in question reveals that there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner of conniving with the co-accused and trapping the son of the deceased in a relationship with one girl named JAWALA RAM 2020.03.05 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh 'Ashu' and thereafter, fraudulently forcing the son of the deceased to deposit

CRM-M-8188-2020 - 2 - various amounts of money i.e. ` 2000/- and ` 3,20,000/- in her own account. Not only this, thereafter, the petitioner also threatened the deceased to falsely implicate her son in a false rape case. It is prima facie apparent that the petitioner played an active role in the crime in question along with the co-accused, who is yet to be arrested.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required by the investigating agency. Therefore, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed. However, it is made clear that anything observed herein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE February 26, 2020 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2020.03.05 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh