Rajpal Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 101+283 CRM-43454, 43455-2024 in/and CRM-M-24834-2024 Date of decision: November 6th, 2024 Rajpal Kaur .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia and Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. T.P.S. Walia, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Harpreet Singh Multani, Advocate for the complainant.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) CRM-43454-2024 Prayer in this application is for affecting service upon respondent No.2 through S.H.O. or through publication. Since respondent No.2-complainant is now represented by a counsel, the instant application has been rendered infructuous. Disposed of accordingly.

CRM-43455-2024 Prayer in this application is for placing on record order dated 08.08.2024 passed by learned JMIC, Kharar, as Annexure P-12. Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Annexure P-12 is taken on record.

CRM-M-24834-2024 Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail

CRM-43454, 43455-2024 in/and CRM-M-24834-2024 -2under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.147 dated 30.12.2023 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Mullanpur, District S.A.S. Nagar. 2.

Vide order dated 30.07.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 30.07.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. It has also been submitted that as per allegations, the petitioner along with her husband had received `1,68,00,000/- from the complainant, which have since been returned to the complainant, in which regard the statement of the complainant has also been recorded by the learned trial Court and stands reflected in the order dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure P-12), whereby the husband of the petitioner was extended the concession of regular bail.

4.

Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and having cooperated with the investigating agency. However, learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that out of a total amount of `4,99,00,000/-, only `1,68,00,000/- has been returned. 5.

Learned counsel for the complainant has, however, conceded that as far as the petitioner is concerned, an amount of only `1,68,00,000/- was received by her from the complainant. 6.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 30.07.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid

CRM-43454, 43455-2024 in/and CRM-M-24834-2024 -3down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS. 7.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

November 6th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No