Nandni Sharma v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.2388 of 2020 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.2388 of 2020 Date of Decision.04.02.2020 Nandini Sharma

...Petitioner

Vs State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

-.- JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL) 1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0059 dated 17.09.2019 under Sections 363, 366-A IPC and under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 (Sections 120-B, 376 IPC and Sections 6, 17 of POCSO Act have been added later on) registered at Police Station Taragarh, District Pathankot.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that petitioner stands arrested on 20.09.2019 in the aforesaid FIR, while further contending that after investigation, challan has been presented, which reflects that the only role attributed to the petitioner herein is that she had made arrangement to stay for the run away couple at Darbar Sahib, Amritsar and other than that, there is no such finding that she had either abdicated or abetted the victim to run away from home. Investigation has already been completed and challan has been presented, therefore, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail, as her custodial interrogation would not be required. 3.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the PANKAJ KUMAR 2020.02.05 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.2388 of 2020 -2respondent-State opposes the bail application, while contending that the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to concession of regular bail. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

Since challan has already been presented in the present case wherein the role attributed to the petitioner is that she had made arrangement to stay for the run away couple at Amritsar and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no more required, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bars. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, any observation made herein is not to affect the merit of the case. (JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE February 04, 2020 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2020.02.05 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document