Balbir Kaur Alias Balvir Kaur v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.09.2023 Balbir Kaur alias Balvir Kaur ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT Present :

Mr. H.S.Grewal, Advocate, and Mr. S.K.Kanojia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present first petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.69 dated 30.04.2023, registered under Sections 304 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (offences under Sections 302, 449, 364, 506 and 452 IPC were added later on) at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar. 2.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is totally concocted. The petitioner is not involved in the crime at all. In the first instance, the case was registered only under Section 304 IPC, however, subsequently, the case has been converted into Section 302 IPC. In fact, even the petitioner has lost her daughter in the incident. The death seems to have resulted only from the suicide pact of the couple. The petitioner has absolutely no role in the incident. By any mean, the petitioner would be the last person on the earth

-2to take the life of her daughter. There is no other case against the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to join the investigation as and when so required by the police. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be protected against her arrest.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Sandeep, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

5.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Surinder Singh, has submitted that the death of the couple had happened inside the house of the petitioner, where the petitioner was present, as well. The petitioner had brought the poisonous substance in joint effort of all the co-accused. Investigation is at the initial stage. Since, it is a murder case, therefore, the police need the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve any concession of anticipatory bail. 6.

Keeping in view the fact that even the daughter of the petitioner had died in the incident and the fact that there is no separate and specific allegation against the petitioner except alleging some action jointly by the other co-accused, this Court finds that it would be appropriate to protect the petitioner from being arrested, however by directing her to join the investigation.

7.

In view of the above, but without commenting upon merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of by granting concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, it is directed that in case of her arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to her furnishing bail

-3bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, it is further directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(RAJBIR SEHRAWAT) JUDGE 06.09.2023 adhikari Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No