CRM No.M-27564 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-15.10.2010 Jasbir Kaur w/o Jarnail Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Preetinder S.Ahluwalia, 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 Addl.Sessions Judge, petitioner Jasbir Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against her alongwith her other co-accused, vide FIR No.76 dated 3.6.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 308, 323, 324, 325, 326, 341 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Mukerian, Distt.Hoshiarpur, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through 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. 4. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution against the present petitioner is that she gave a brick bat blow to PW Dilbag Singh causing a simple injury. No other role or overt act is attributed to her. Keeping in view the allegations contained in the FIR, the false implication and addition of lady accused, cannot possibly be ruled out at this stage. The learned State counsel, on instructions from CRM No.M-27564 of 2010 (O&M) 2 HC Vinod Kumar, has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and she is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. As she is a lady, therefore, to me, it is not the case of custodial interrogation. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. The law of bail is liberal towards the women. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 15.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge