High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/44513/2014allowed

Narayan Bai v. State Of Haryana

2015-02-20Mr. Justice S.C. Malte3 pages

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 20, 2015 Narayan Bai

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Addl.AG, Haryana.

Mr.Satbir Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.2- informant.

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.(Oral) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Narayan Bai, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.300, dated 31.10.2014, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Dabwali.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jagat Ram, Police Station, Sadar, Dabwali, submits that in compliance of the order dated 20.1.2015 passed by this Court though the petitioner has joined the investigation yet the recovery of certain ornaments and other electronic goods have not been effected. He further submits that during interrogation, the petitioner disclosed that she was not in possession of the

[2] remaining dowry articles.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-informant submits that the husband of the informant has already left India and gone to Germany and the petitioner, who is mother-in-law, if granted bail then the rights of the informant would be prejudiced.

I have heard the learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2-informant and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. The husband of the petitioner i.e father-in-law of the informant was arrested and certain dowry articles were recovered at that time. The petitioner is mother-in-law and she has already joined the investigation. During her interrogation, she disclosed that she was not in possession of the remaining dowry articles.

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2015 are made absolute.

The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.

February 20, 2015 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge

[3]