High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/18497/2015allowed

Pooja v. State Of Punjab

2015-07-31Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri2 pages

CRM-M-18497-2015 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18497-2015 Date of decision: 31.07.2015 Pooja ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH PRESENT: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gazi Mohd., DAG, Punjab.

R.P. NAGRATH, J. (ORAL) This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 246 dated 29.08.2013 registered under Sections 363/366/376/120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar. When this case was listed on 01.06.2015, following order was passed:- "Contends that the petitioner is similarly placed as Prem Lata whose name did not find mention in the FIR or in the challan submitted by the police but has been summoned under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and has been granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail in CRM-M-13488-2015. Prays for parity by referring to the allegations and pleading that it is similar to the afore-mentioned Prem Lata.

Notice of motion for 31.7.2015.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to submit herself to the process of law by appearing RISHU KATARIA 2015.08.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-18497-2015 -2before the learned trial Court on 1.7.2015 whereupon the trial Court shall admit her to bail on furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction upon the petitioner moving an application for regular bail. Till that time the arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed. In case the petitioner does not appear and make a prayer for regular bail, the benefit of interim protection shall not be available to her."

It is not disputed that in terms of the above-stated order dated 01.06.2015, the petitioner has appeared before the trial Court and furnished the bail bonds.

Learned petitioner's counsel submits that the charges have since been framed by the trial Court even against the petitioner. On instructions from ASI Daljinder Singh, learned State counsel submits that the matter is fixed for today before the trial Court for recording prosecution evidence.

In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, the instant petition is allowed and order dated 01.06.2015 is made absolute and the bail bonds furnished by petitioner before the trial Court would continue during the pendency of trial. July 31, 2015 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE RISHU KATARIA 2015.08.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document