Tarsem Rani v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-65012-2023 215-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-65012-2023 Date of Decision: 10.01.2024 Tarsem Rani
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, A.A.G., Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 26 09.08.2023 Vigilance Bureau, District Amritsar Rural 409, 420, 120-B IPC and 13
(1) (a) read with 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988 (Amendment) Act, 2018 1.
The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. 2.
Vide order dated 04.01.2024, the petitioner has been granted interim anticipatory bail and the said order is continuing till date. 3.
Counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that even if the entire case of prosecution is admitted to be correct, the petitioner not only lost the money which she had allegedly given as bribe and they would have no objection if the government takes back the alleged land from them. Moreover, the order which was passed in her favour has already been stayed by the higher court i.e. the Court of Commissioner. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that they should not be denied bail and they would have no objection whatsoever to return the land. Counsel further submits that they would not take such concession as violative of Article 20/21 of the Constitution of India or Indian Evidence Act or any other law.
4.
Given the specific stand of the petitioner that no loss would be caused to the State government because they would return the land as and when the authorities come and take it back if it is found in their possession, they would leave the possession in favour of the government and would not object to the same (without conceding and Jyoti Sharma 2024.01.16 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-65012-2023 admitting its evidence in the trial) and coupled with the fact it was the lapse on the part of the corrupt government officials and further that the petitioner is a woman, there is no need for custodial interrogation and also no need for pre-trial incarceration. 5.
Given above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 04.01.2024 is made absolute.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 10.01.2024 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.
Jyoti Sharma 2024.01.16 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh