Radha Devi & ORS v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (1) CRM No.M-41602 of 2015 (O&M) Radha Devi and others

...Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

(2) CRM No.M-870 of 2016 (O&M) Rimpy Devi and another

...Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

Date of Decision:- July 26, 2016

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms.Shivali, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together being arisen from same FIR.

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.302 dated 13.11.2015 under Sections 353, 186, 148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala.

Notice of motion was issued in both the petitions and learned VINEET GULATI 2016.07.28 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh State counsel appeared and contested the petitions.

CRM No.M-41602 of 2015 and connected case -2I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that the FIR has been registered on the statement of SI Gurmit Singh mainly on the grounds that when the police party reached near the house of accused, then petitioners along with coaccused came out of their house. When the police party enquired regarding whereabouts of Avtar Singh, then the petitioners along with co-accused manhandled SI Gurmit Singh and also torn shoulder stars on his uniform. Due to this scuffle, Avtar Singh @ Leela ran away after scaling the wall. The petitioners are not required for any investigation or interrogation purposes. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners.

Otherwise also, the petitioners have already joined the investigation. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody. 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 petitioners are entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, both the petitions are accepted and the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by CRM No.M-41602 of 2015 and the order dated 13.01.2016 passed by CRM No.M-870 of 2016 granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute.

July 26, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2016.07.28 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh