Sabnoor Bano v. State Of Haryana

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, as her name has not been mentioned in the FIR. She has no connection with the said health centre and resides at Nuh, whereas the centre is situated at Punhana. It is further contended that in the present case, the secret informer and the complainant are the same person, which is impermissible in law and contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed v. State of Haryana, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 128. It is further submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and her custodial interrogation is not required. She is ready and willing to join the investigation and to abide by all terms and conditions imposed by the Court; therefore, she prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.