Cr.Misc. NO. M 34519 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. NO. M 34519 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION 23.4.2009 Dalbir Kaur ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab. ......RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Mr. KS Kahlon, Advocate Mr. PS Sidhu,Addl.A.G.Punjab Mr. RK Dadwal, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is a widow of Sukhdev Singh. She has filed this petition for the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Surinder Singh alleging that the petitioner and her deceased husband Sukhdev Singh used to come to his shop. They had persuaded the complainant to send his son to Italy on payment of Rs.5.20 lacs. The allegation against the petitioner is that she along with her husband had sent Hardeep Singh, son of the complainant, to Philippine instead of Italy, where he stayed for a period of two years and returned back. The FIR has been registered on the allegation that though the promise was made to send the complainant's son to Italy but he was fraudulently sent to Philippine from where he had to return back after two years. Learned counsel for the complainant has appeared to oppose the petition for pre-arrest bail contending that the FIR in this case was registered after the complainant had filed Cr.Misc. 33925 M of 2007 seeking a direction to the State to register an FIR on the basis of C.D., in which the petitioner in her conversation had allegedly admitted to have Cr.Misc. NO. M 34519 of 2008 2 received the money from the complainant. A copy of the order dated 19.3.2008 has been placed on the record indicating that the High Court had given a direction to the State to depute an officer, not below the rank of DSP and submit a report in the court. The FIR was registered on the basis of the inquiry, as is reflected from the order dated 21.5.2008. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. As the FIR was registered after the complainant had approached the High Court for a direction, the same will not be a sufficient ground for declining the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is a lady. The allegations against the petitioner and her husband are that they had persuaded the complainant to part with money. It will be a moot point during trial whether the petitioner is solely liable for the amount received and not performing the work, as promised or that she has got a joint criminal liability with her deceased husband. The effect of silence of the complainant for a period of more than two years in availing the legal remedy will have to be construed during trial. In view of the petitioner having already joined the investigation, she can be allowed pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, she will be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that she will appear before the investigating officer as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation at any stage. April 23 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE