Ravainder Jit Kaur And ANR v. State Of Ut Chandigarh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.215 Case No. : Crl. Misc. No.M-38016 of 2021 Date of Decision : January 11, 2022 Ravainder Jit Kaur and another ....

Petitioner vs.

State of U.T., Chandigarh ....

Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL. (Through Video Conferencing) Present :

Mr. G. B. S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Y. S. Rathore, Addl. Public Prosecutor, UT, Chandigarh. Mr. Sumit Dua, Advocate for the complainant.

* * * MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J.

(Oral) :

The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.0058 dated 03.09.2021, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Women Police Station, Chandigarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that their daughterin-law i.e. the complainant had levelled false allegations of harassment against them in the FIR in question. In fact, there was a history of marital discord between their son and the complainant and it was precisely for the aforementioned reason that the petitioners too had been implicated in the FIR in question.

Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to order dated 14.09.2021, passed by this Court, the petitioners have joined investigation and co-operated with the investigating agency. Learned State counsel, assisted by counsel for the complainant, does not dispute the factum of the petitioners having joined investigation. Learned State counsel as well as the counsel for the complainant, however, submit that some gold ornaments have not yet been recovered from the possession of the petitioners and hence, their custodial interrogation would be required.

MONIKA 2022.01.12 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Crl. Misc. No.M-38016 of 2021 : 2 :

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has vehemently controverted the submissions made by the State counsel as well as the counsel for the complainant by drawing the attention of this Court to the FIR in question. He submits that a perusal of the contents of the FIR clearly reveal that there is no allegation of any demand, much less entrustment of any gold ornaments, to the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

Mere non-recovery of a few disputed gold ornaments cannot be a ground to decline the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, as has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015, titled as, "Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice' decided on 14.09.2018. The instant petition is allowed and interim order dated 14.09.2021 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

January 11, 2022 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MONIKA 2022.01.12 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document