CRM No.M-23040 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-30.9.2010 Joginder Kaur w/o Bachhan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G.Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised her right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Joginder Kaur wife of Bachhan Singh, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against her alongwith her other co-accused, namely, Nachhatar Singh, Lakhvir Singh, Gurdev Singh and Sarabjit Kaur, vide FIR No.59 dated 29.5.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 326 and 452 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Faridkot, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. According to the prosecution that on 29.5.2010, the petitioner alongwith her other co-accused caused injuries to complainant Karnail Kaur, Krishan Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur PWs with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here- in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through CRM No.M-23040 of 2010 2 the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 5. It is not a matter of dispute that the injuries attributed to petitioner are simple in nature. The main grievous injury, subject matter of offence punishable under section 326 IPC, is attributed to main accused Gurdev Singh, who is not petitioner before this Court. Sarabjit Kaur, co-accused of the petitioner, has already been allowed concession of anticipatory bail by this Court on 29.7.2010, vide CRM No.M-21590 of 2010. 6. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurmail Singh, has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and she is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. All the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. The law of bail is liberal towards the women. 7. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 8. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of her arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) she shall make herself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) she 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 and (iii) she will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. CRM No.M-23040 of 2010 3 9. Needless to mention that in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of her bail, in this relevant connection. 30.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge