Monika Sood v. State Of Punjab

[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : August 03, 2017 Monika Sood ..................................................... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ................................................. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...

Present:

Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. R.S.Athwal, Advocate for the complainant.

...

LISA GILL, J. (Oral) CRM-16334-2017 For the reasons mentioned in the application Section 307 IPC be added in the head note and the prayer clause of the petition. Necessary addition be effected by the Registry before issuance of a copy of this order. Application is disposed of.

CRM-M-4843-2017 The petitioner, who is the married sister-in-law of the deceased, Rupinder Kaur 2017.08.05 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

[ 2 ] seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 147 dated 25.10.2016 under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC and Section 304-B, 307, 34 IPC (added later on) registered at Police Station City, District Hoshiarpur. It is contended that the petitioner's marriage was solemnized in the year 2012. She has been living with her in-laws family since then. She has been falsely implicated in this FIR merely due to her relationship with the husband of the deceased. There are no specific allegations against the present petitioner in the FIR. It is further submitted that the deceased was admittedly at her parental home when she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. Moreover, the petitioner has joined investigation pursuant to interim order dated 10.05.2017 passed by this Court. Therefore, this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Balkar Singh, affirms and verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and her custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from her. It is affirmed by learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State that the petitioner's marriage was solemnized in the year 2012 though it is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner was interfering in the affairs of the deceased and her husband. Be that as it may, there is no allegation that the petitioner is likely to abscond or that she is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts before the learned trial Court, if released on bail. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is considered just and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated 10.05.2017 is made absolute.

[ 3 ] None of the observations made here-in-above shall be construed to be a reflection on merits of the case and shall have no bearing on trial.

( LISA GILL ) 03.08.2017 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No