CRM-M 2841 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 2841 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.03.2011 Manjit Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. G.N. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.3 dated 3.1.2011 under Sections 406/419/420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has played no role in the alleged transaction nor petitioner was paid any amount by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that petitioner has been roped in the case, since Karnail Singh father-in-law of the petitioner had deposited certain amount in the bank account of the petitioner (daughter-in-law). Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that since petitioner has neither received any money nor played any role in the alleged transaction, hence petitioner cannot be held guilty for any offence even prima facie on the basis of CRM-M 2841 of 2011 (O&M) -2- deposit of any amount in the account of the petitioner. Affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh ASI, Investigating Officer, handed over in Court is taken on record. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on the instructions of ASI Sukhwinder Singh, states that petitioner has to be interrogated to know the source of Rs.27,00,000/-, which were deposited in the account of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011(1) RCR(Criminal) 126, argued that irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided. In paragraph No.5 of the petition seeking anticipatory it has been stated by the petitioner that Karnail Singh, father-in-law, of the petitioner has deposited amount in the account of the petitioner and he has later on withdrawn the amount from the account of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, source of money is made clear by the petitioner in paragraph No.5. In view of the above, custodial interrogation seems to be unjustified. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case present petition is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on furnishing personal bond and one surety of Rs.20,000/- subject to the condition under Section 438(2) of the Code. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when he is required to do so. However, it is CRM-M 2841 of 2011 (O&M) -3- clarified that if petitioner does not join the investigation despite of the call by the investigating officer, prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail. (Alok Singh) Judge March 01, 2011 R.S.