Ranjeet Kaur @ Renu v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 29.11.2023 Ranjeet Kaur alias Renu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU Present :

Mr. C.S.Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1.

Mr. P.S.Mann, Advocate, for respondent No.2/complainant.

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No.70 dated 11.08.2023, under Sections 306 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Badali Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

2.

Above FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by one Retish Kumar with the allegations that petitioner along with her family members had pressurized his father (Rajesh Kumar) to commit suicide. 3.

This Court, on 19.09.2023, granted interim bail to petitioner and relevant part of the same is recapitulated as under:-

-2- "Status report by way of an affidavit of Mohit Kumar Singla, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib has been filed by learned State counsel. The same is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to the counsel opposite.

Contends that except for the allegations of harassment, there is nothing against the petitioner that she has abetted the commission of offence in any manner. Learned counsel for the complainant while making reference to the suicide note submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of pre arrest bail. But again, it is nowhere discernible that petitioner has instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Faced with the above situation, learned State counsel seeks time to have further instructions in the matter.

Posted for 17.10.2023.

In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join investigation before the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit her to interim bail in the present case, till the next date of hearing, on furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioner is also directed to abide by all the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."

4.

Contends that in terms of the aforesaid order, petitioner has already joined investigation and her custodial interrogation is not required. 5.

Above factual position is duly acknowledged by learned State Counsel, on instructions from ASI Harbhajan Singh, and further stated that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this stage. 6.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioner. Since learned State counsel is not asking for custodial interrogation of petitioner, therefore, the objection raised by learned counsel for the complainant is overruled; hence, rejected.

-37.

In view of the above, interim order dated 19.09.2023 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 8.

It is also made clear that petitioner shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation. 9.

The above observations may not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case; rather confined only to decide the present bail matter.

10.

Disposed off accordingly.

11.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 29.11.2023 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) adhikari JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned :

Yes No Whether Reportable :

Yes No