Rajni Rani v. State Of Haryana





IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22311-2023 Date of decision : 17.07.2023 Rajni Rani ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) While granting interim relief to the petitioner on 8th of May, 2023, the following order was passed:

 

    
   
   

  !"  

"
 ""#  $ %  "   " " 

   

 " &  '

   '   "       "    

     " ()"    "   "   

" &$ %        "     

  "    "    

"     

 "  " &  ""  $ '  *+$,+$-,-.$ / "  "              "    "   "         ""   

 

"  ' 0)  1$

"  "   "   "     " 

"     
 2.3 -!4$$4$5 DEEPAK KUMAR 2023.07.17 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-22311-2023 -22023:PHHC:089235 2.

As per the allegations levelled in the FIR the name of petitioner Rajni Rani has come in the disclosure statement made by coaccused namely Aman and Armaan. 3.

State Counsel submits that as per the status report filed there are as much as 18 calls trace between Aman and Rajni. However, he does not dispute that even as per the case of the prosecution the allegation against the petitioner is that on her asking Aman and Armaan procured the arms. It is not a case that it is the petitioner who supplied the arms. 4.

Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that there is nothing against the petitioner. Even if these allegations are taken to be correct on their face value the same would not constitute any offence under the Arms Act.

5.

In view of above, without commenting on the merits of the case, order dated 8th of May, 2023 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. 6.

The petitions stands disposed off.

July 17, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2023.07.17 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document