Urmila v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 1.

Criminal Misc. No.M-16982 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision: May 22 , 2017.

Urmila ...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) 2.

Criminal Misc. No. M- 35094 of 2016(O&M).

Harminder Singh @ Bhinda ...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:

Mr. Rahul Sharma-I, Advocate in CRM No.M-16982 of 2016 Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate for Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Advocate in CRM No.M-16982 of 2016 for the petitioners.

Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for the complainant.

***** LISA GILL, J.

This order shall dispose of Crl.Misc. No.16982 of 2016 (Urmila v. State of Punjab) and Crl.Misc. No.M-35094 of 2016 (Harminder Singh @ Bhinda). The petitioners in both the petitions seek the concession of

anticipatory bail in FIR No.44 dated 02.05.2016 under Section 306 IPC registered at Police Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar. It is submitted that both the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. There are no allegations, whatsoever, attracting the rigors of Section 306 IPC qua the present petitioners. There is nothing on record to point out that the present petitioners were in any manner instrumental in the instigation or abetment of suicide by the deceased - Kulwinder Kaur. Learned counsel urges that allegations, if any attracting Section 306 IPC, would at best be qua co-accused Chanda. The petitioners, it is submitted, are not involved in any other case. Co-accused Kulwinder Kaur and Jagjit Singh have been afforded the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court on 16.08.2016 in CRM No.

M-18873 of 2016 and CRM No.M-23683 of 2016. The petitioners have joined investigation. Therefore, these petitions be allowed. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Bhag Singh, affirms and verifies that the petitioners have joined investigation pursuant to orders dated 25.05.2016 and 30.09.2016 passed in CRM No.M16982 of 2016 and CRM No.M-35094 of 2016, respectively. Their custodial interrogation is not required. It is not denied that the co-accused Kulwinder Kaur and Jagjit Singh have been afforded the benefit of anticipatory bail as mentioned above.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both

these petitions are allowed. Consequently, orders dated 25.05.2016 and 30.09.2016 passed in CRM No.M-16982 of 2016 and CRM No.M-35094 of 2016, respectively, are made absolute.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition. ( LISA GILL ) May 22 , 2017.

JUDGE 'om'

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No