Reena Shekhawat v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-51229-2024 Date of decision: January 22nd, 2025 Reena Shekhawat .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.15 dated 02.02.2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC, registered at Police Station Satnail, District Mahendergarh. 2.

Mr. Lakshay Jindal, Advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his power of attorney, which is taken on record.

3.

Vide order dated 16.10.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under: "Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is the wife of the prime accused-Manoj and it is precisely for that reason that she has been made an accused in the present FIR by being labelled as a conspirator to the crime in question. It has been further submitted that no doubt the plot of land which was sold out by carving out small plots was indeed in her name, however, being a house-hold lady, she in good faith had given her General Power of Attorney to her husband i.e. the prime accused, who then carried out the sale transactions/sale PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.01.22 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-51229-2024 -2deeds of the plots in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that there was not even a single sale deed which had been done directly by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency."

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 16.10.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 5.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for her custodial interrogation.

6.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 16.10.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

January 22nd, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.01.22 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh