Urmila And Another v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-54265-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:-17.1.2020 Urmila and another ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Amrainder Singh, Advocate for the petitionesr. Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by ASI Gajender Singh.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.604 dated 19.11.2019 at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad under Sections 323, 452, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Rekha, wherein it has been alleged that her cousin namely Devendri resided with her, who had been teased by Kalu @ Rajender, regarding which she lodged a complaint with the police. It is alleged that on 11.11.2019 when the complainant was present in her house, then Rahul son of Rajender came there alongwith his wife Urmila while holding sticks and attempted to kill her and gave beatings to her and who said that in case the complaint filed by Devendri is not compromised, PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.01.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-54265-2019 (O&M) then the complainant's sister Seema, her sons, daughter-in-law and daughter would be eliminated. It is further stated therein that on the same day at about 7:00 P.M., Pawan i.e. son of the complainant received a threatening call on his mobile phone.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case simply in order to pressurize them. It has further been submitted that, in any case, no grievous injury is alleged to have been sustained by the complainant or by anybody else and that in these circumstances, the petitioners deserve the concession of bail. 4.

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioners are specifically named in the FIR, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It has, however, been informed that pursuant to interim directions, the petitioners have since joined investigation. 5.

Having regard to the nature of allegations and the fact that the petitioners have joined investigation, their custodial interrogation is not warranted. The petition, as such, is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2019 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioners shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. 17.1.2020 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.01.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document