Saroj v. State Of Haryana

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 15.07.2024 Saroj .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Ms. Neha Dewan, Advocate with Mr. Mayur Karkra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

***** FIR NO.

DATE POLICE STATION OFFENCES 694 26.11.2023 Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala 365 IPC (Section 120-B IPC added later on) GURVINDER SINGH GILL , J . (Oral) 1.

The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of aforementioned FIR. 2.

At the time of issuance of interim bail the following order was passed on 04.03.2024:

"The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered against her vide FIR No. 694, dated 26.11.2023, Police

- 2 - Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala, under Section 365 IPC (Section 120-B IPC added later on).

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Parvesh Kumar wherein he alleged that his daughter aged about 17 years and 8 months was residing in Ambala as a PG and was working in XL Company. It is alleged that on 21.11.2023, she left the premises while informing her friends that she has to buy some winter clothes, but did not return back and even her phone was found to be switched off. The complainant alleged that he suspected that some unknown persons had kidnapped his daughter. It is further the case of prosecution that after about 2 months of lodging of the FIR, the complainant made a supplementary statement to the police that upon inquiries he had come to know that his daughter had been kidnapped by Ajay Kumar in connivance with his mother Saroj (petitioner).

Learned counsel submitted that she has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submits that his son had also been missing since the last about 2 months and that it is perhaps a case where petitioner's son and complainant's daughter had voluntarily left their homes. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not aware about the whereabouts of either his son or of complainant's daughter and had never connived with them and as a matter of fact the petitioner had been trying to contact her son and had also advised him to return back. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner who is a widow aged about 45 years has been falsely implicated simply in order to pressurise the entire family.

Notice of motion for 15.07.2024.

Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to her furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the

- 3 - Arresting/Investigating Officer and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C."

3.

Learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation and is not required for any custodial interrogation. 4.

In view of the aforestated position wherein the petitioner has joined investigation and she is not stated to be required for any custodial interrogation, the petition is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2024 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

15.07.2024 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) Mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No