Sunita Devi v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : December 04, 2024 SUNITA DEVI -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB -RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab.

*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1.

Through the instant petition, the petitioner prays for her being granted the concession of regular bail, in case FIR No.71 dated 11.07.2024, under Sections 420/120-B of the IPC, registered at P.S. Kabarwala, District Shri Muktsar Sahib.

2.

Succinctly stated, the allegations against the petitioner are that, she in connivance with her co-accused Jagseer Singh, got sanctioned the mutation relating to inheritance of property belonging to one Gurnam Singh.

3.

In his beseeching the relief of regular bail for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, totally false allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. In fact, the complainants, who are sisters of one Gurnam Singh, got performed the marriage of their brother Gurnam Singh with the petitioner in the year 2013 and this marriage was consented by the family members of the complainants.

Moreover, a document in the shape of consent marriage was also reduced into writing and the said document was signed by the petitioner, Gurnam Singh, complainants and their husbands. Not only this, the marriage of the petitioner and Gurnam Singh was attended by the complainants and their husband and their photographs were also clicked. Furthermore, the petitioner possesses Voter card and Aadhar card, wherein, name of Gurnam Singh is recorded as her husband.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the dispute is purely civil in nature and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the trial is a Magisterial trial and the petitioner has already suffered incarceration of approx. 02 months. 5.

Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner's co-accused Jagseer Singh has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 16.10.2024, drawn upon CRM-M-43429-2024.

6.

This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 7.

Be that as it may, without evincing anything on merits of the case, but, considering the fact that: (i) as per the custody certificate dated 03.12.2024, as placed on record today by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 month and 23 days till 03.12.2024 and she has no criminal antecedents; (ii) the trial is a Magisterial trial, conclusion whereof is not expected anytime soon; this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the

petitioner. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

8.

However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on the merits of the case and is meant for deciding the present petition only.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) December 04, 2024 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No