Deepika v. The State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16202-2024 Date of decision: July 11th, 2024 Deepika .....Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.128 dated 31.10.2022 under Sections 420/406 (Sections 370/370-A/387/120-B added later on) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act registered at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur.

2.

Vide order dated 04.04.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that a false and fabricated version has been brought forth in the FIR in question, which finds further credence from an unexplained delay of almost 09 months after the wife of the complainant had been sent abroad. Learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR in question, has further submitted PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.07.11 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-16202-2024 -2that as per the case of the complainant himself, his wife had been sent to Oman as per the undertaking/promise given by the petitioner and it was only once she reached Oman, there purportedly occurred some dispute between the wife of the complainant and her employer and hence, the petitioner had no role to play in the disappearance of his wife. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 04.04.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Ravinder Singh, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He on further instructions submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for her custodial interrogation. 5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 04.04.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

July 11th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.07.11 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh