← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/8547/2018allowed

Dharna Goel v. State Of Punjab

2018-09-10Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

CRM-M No.8547 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.8547 of 2018 Decided on: 10.09.2018 Dharna Goel ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present :

Ms. Jasneet Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.69 dated 22.04.2017, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Doraha, District Ludhiana.

The operative part of the order dated 07.03.2018, vide which interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner, is reproduced as under:- "....Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner worked as an Additional Director at M/s. Ringing Bell Private Limited from 02.06.2016 till 15.06.2016, when she resigned from the said post. It is further submitted that co-accused i.e. husband of the petitioner namely Mohit Goel as well as another coaccused namely Sumit Kumar have already been arrested in the case and they have been granted regular bail by the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is in advance stage of MOHD YAKUB 2018.09.10 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M No.8547 of 2018 pregnancy and her expected date of delivery is 27.05.2018. Counsel for the petitioner in support of her arguments has relied upon the medical reports of the petitioner (Annexure P2 (Colly.)). It is further argued that in another FIR, the petitioner has been granted the concession of interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.02.2018 passed in CRM-M No.7573 of 2018 which is now fixed for 10.09.2018.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Teja Singh, has, however, opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case...." Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in pursuance to the order dated 07.03.2018, the petitioner has already appeared before the Investigating Officer and has joined the investigation. Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Hardam Singh, has not disputed the aforesaid fact and submits that the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 07.03.2018 is made absolute subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 10.09.2018 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2018.09.10 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh