High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/52760/2019disposed of

Nazma v. State Of Punjab

2020-01-10Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 52760 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 10.01.2020 Nazma

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

***** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J .(Oral) The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.45 dated 28.05.2019, registered under Sections 353, 186, 332, 148 and 149 IPC, at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur.

Notice of motion was issued on 11.12.2019 by passing the following order:- "The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.45 dated 28.05.2019 under Sections 353, 186, 332, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police

-2Station Dhariwal, district Gurdasur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR wherein it is alleged that co-accused, namely, Farooq Masih along with others had torn the uniform of a police official and abused him. He also contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as co-accused, namely, Farooq Masih had filed a contempt petition against SHO Raj Masih prior to the registration of the FIR.

Issue notice to the respondent returnable on 10.01.2020.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating/arresting officer and join investigation. In the event of her arrest, the investigating/arresting officer shall release the petitioner on ad interim bail subject to his satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C."

In compliance to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has joined the investigation and undertakes to join further investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Parkash Singh admits the same and states that her custodial interrogation is no more required in further investigation of the case.

In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, order dated 11.12.2019 is made absolute, however

-3petitioner shall keep on abiding the conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

Petition stands disposed of.

10.01.2020 ( Raj Mohan Singh ) geeta Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No