Sunita Rani Alias Sunita Devi v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-61870-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61870-2024 Decided on: 06.02.2025 Sunita Rani alias Sunita Devi

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Vishavjeet Singh Rishi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 27.10.2024 Division No.4, District Ludhiana 13 & 3 of Public Gambling Act 1867 and Section 112 of BNS 2023 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

2.

Vide order dated 18.12.2024, the petitioner was granted interim bail, subject to the following conditions:-

1) That the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required to do so.

2) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

3) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

3.

The petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner had complied with the order dated 18.12.2024 and joined the investigation and the said fact is not disputed by the State counsel on instructions received from the investigating officer. The petitioner's counsel further argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. ANJU RANI 2025.02.07 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

CRM-M-61870-2024 4.

The petitioner was granted interim protection, and during the interregnum, there is no allegation that he had intimidated the witnesses, hampered the investigation, or, despite being called to join the investigation, did not appear before the investigator. Given the above, there would be no justification to discontinue the interim protection, which is made absolute subject to the petitioner complying with the terms of the bail order.

5.

Petition allowed and order dated 18.12.2024 is made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 06.02.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.

ANJU RANI 2025.02.07 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh