Jai Shri Panchal v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on: 05.07.2019 Jai Shri Panchal ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present :

Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.845 dated 14.11.2017, registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC (Sectiions 467, 468, 471 IPC added later) at Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal.

The operative part of the order dated 03.05.2019, vide which interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner, is reproduced as under:- "....Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the new ground for applying for anticipatory bail is that main accused Dhanraj Panchal stands arrested and there is no direct allegation against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the complainant had filed a criminal

complaint against the petitioner and her husband, on the same set of allegations and vide order dated 29.07.2016, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad dismissed the complaint, holding that no prima facie offence for summoning the accused is made out. It is further submitted that after a period of five years, present FIR has been registered.

Considering the fact that main accused i.e. husband of the petitioner Dhanraj Panchal already stands arrested and the petitioner is ready to join the investigation, she is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 14.05.2019 at 10.00 a.m. or any other date or time as fixed by the Investigating Officer, to join investigation and she will be released on interim bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds subject to the following conditions:-

1. She will make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

2. She will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

3. She will not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

List again on 24.05.2019...."

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in pursuance to the order dated 03.05.2019, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has joined the investigation. Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Updesh Kumar, has not disputed the aforesaid fact and submits that the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the

interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 03.05.2019 is made absolute subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 05.07.2019 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No