Sahidan v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.: 206 Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-16842 of 2016 (O & M) Date of Decision: July 08, 2016 Smt. Sahidan ..... PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Haryana ..... RESPONDENT . . .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH . . .

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? . . .

PRESENT: - Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by HC Rajinder Kumar.

. . .

Jaspal Singh, J (Oral) 1.

This is a petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.181 dated March 31, 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station, Nuh, District Mewat.

2.

While issuing notice of motion, following order was passed by a coordinate Bench of this court on May 16, 2016:- "Petitioner is a lady who seeks concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Sarmina who alleged that she along with her sister in law Rukaya had purchased 10 marlas of land for a sum of Avin Kumar 2016.07.15 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Crl. Misc. No.M-16842 of 2016 [2] Rs.5,40,000/- from the petitioner but subsequently on 5.1.2016, when the complainant and her sister in law asked the petitioner to get the sale deed executed, she disclosed that she and her husband and son had executed sale deed in favour of other persons who dispossessed the complainant from the plot.

The allegation against the petitioner is that she has sold the area more than the area owned by her.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is her husband who had purchased and sold the property in her name. After the arrest of her husband and son, they have been granted concession of regular bail. Notice to the Advocate General, Haryana, for 8.7.2016. Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioner will join investigation on or before 28.5.2016 and 18.6.2016 or on any other day as required by the Investigating Officer. In case of petitioner doing so, she shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer" 3.

Learned State counsel has submitted that in compliance of order dated May 16, 2016, petitioner has joined the investigation on April 21, 2016 and is no more required for further interrogation. 4.

Taking into consideration the above facts of the case, interim order dated May 16, 2016 is made absolute, subject to the conditions, as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Jaspal Singh) July 08, 2016 Judge avin Avin Kumar 2016.07.15 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document