High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/22524/2016allowed

Sandeep Kaur @ Sandaldeep Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2017-02-15Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-22524 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 15, 2017 Sandeep Kaur @ Sandaldeep kaur

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.P.B.S.Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Deep Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Vishva Bahl, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.103 dated 12.10.2015 under Sections 302, 307, 34 IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar Rural. Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. As per the prosecution version, the present petitioner along Vineet Gulati 2017.02.15 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh with other co-accused raised joint lalkara. The petitioner was found

CRM No.M-22524 of 2016 -2innocent during investigation and challan has not been presented against her. Now, the petitioner has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the trial Court.

The petitioner is not required for interrogation or investigation purposes. She is only to face trial before the trial Court. The petitioner is a lady. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody till the disposal of the case, as she has already appeared before the trial Court in view of the order dated 08.07.2016 passed by this Court.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where the petitioner is entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 08.07.2016 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. February 15, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.02.15 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh