Manju Bala And ANR v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision : May 08, 2024 Manju Bala and another ....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present :

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab Mr. Shivender Pal Singh, Advocate, for the complainant KULDEEP TIWARI,J. (ORAL) 1.

On 1.2.2024, this Court passed the following order :- "Mr.Shivender Pal Singh, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of complainant, through a validly executed vakalatnama in his favour. The same is taken on record.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, informs this Court that though the FSL report has been received but the forensic authority has sought some more documents so as to give its final report with regard to the veracity of the alleged suicide note.

Adjourned to 25.04.2024.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and on their doing so, the petitioners be released on interim bail subject to their furnishing

personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioners shall continue to 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."

2.

Today, the learned State counsel on instructions imparted to him by ASI Satish Kumar, submits that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are fully co-operating with the investigation process and they are not required for any further custodial investigation. He further submits that even the investigation is complete, and the final report has been filed way back on 29.4.2024.

3.

Learned counsel for the complainant, though, admitted the factum qua joining of investigation, however, he opposed the grant of relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners on the ground that their roles are so grave and therefore, they are not entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. He further submits that under the garb of interim relief, they are, in fact threatening the complainant and for that one DDR has been registered.

4.

Be that as it may. Since the petitioners have joined the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required and the final report has been filed, this Court deem it appropriate to confirm directions issued by this Court. Therefore, the present petition is allowed and order dated 1.2.2024 is, hereby, made absolute subject

to the condition that the petitioners shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

5.

However, in case, in future, the petitioners made any attempt or cause any threat to the complainant, the latter is at liberty to file appropriate motion seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners.

( KULDEEP TIWARI ) May 08, 2024 JUDGE 'tiwana'

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No Whether Reportable ?

Yes/No