Veerpal Kaur Dhaliwal Alias Khushi Dhaliwal v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-37675-2024 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37675-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.09.2024 Veerpal Kaur Dhaliwal @ Khushi Dhaliwal

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. G.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. M.S. Teji, AAG, Punjab *** TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) This is second petition for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.219 dated 15.10.2020, registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot, Punjab. 2.

The allegations against the petitioner are that she being wife of the main accused was present in the house when the complainant handed over money as well as original documents to the main accused. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on account of her being present along with her alleged husband/main accused she has been implicated in this case. She is not a beneficiary of the transaction in any manner. Besides, she separated from the main accused in February, 2016 itself, and is residing separately with her parents and son. The petitioner is in custody since 04.05.2024; investigation of the case is complete as the final report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. stands filed.

4.

Learned State counsel contends that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. There are allegations of cash amount having been PAYAL 2024.09.13 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-37675-2024 (O&M) -2handed over to her, collectively total amount involved is forty-eight lakhs which concerns all the accused. He, however, does not dispute that the investigation of the case is complete and charges have been framed on 06.09.2024. The case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 20.09.2024, and there are twenty-nine prosecution witnesses to be examined.

5.

The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

6.

Apparently, the offences alleged are triable by the Magistrate, and the petitioner is in custody for over four months and seven days. Conclusion of the trial will take some time as none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. No useful purpose will be served by confining her to custody any longer.

7.

Accordingly, petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 12.09.2024 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2024.09.13 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment