Criminal Misc.-M No.18723 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 18723 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 25.08.2011 Charanjit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate for the complainant. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. On June 10, 2011, while issuing notice of motion, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed:- “It is submitted that the petitioner is employed as a Primary Teacher with the Department of Education, Government of Punjab. Her husband Hardeep Singh is alleged to have cheated the complainant-Rakesh Kumar for a sum of ` 6 lacs by entering into an agreement for sale of his land and before the targeted date transferred the property in the name of his wife i.e. the petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she was accompanying her husband at the time of re- ceipt of money. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband (main accused) of the petitioner has already been arrested and the petitioner from whom no recovery is to be effected is willing to join the investigation. ” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already joined investigation and no recovery is to be effected from her. He further submitted that on inquiry conducted by S.P. (D), Khanna, cancel- lation of the FIR has been recommended. Her husband was arrested. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation. Criminal Misc.-M No.18723 of 2011 2 Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the peti- tioner was accompanying her husband every time when the power of attor- ney and agreement to sell were executed and the money was given. She played active role in the entire deal where the complainant had been cheated. Considering the allegations, she is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegations against the petitioner that she was accompanying her hus- band when the power of attorney and agreement to sell were signed by her husband and further that her husband who had allegedly signed those docu- ments was arrested, in my opinion, she deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, interim bail granted to the petitioner on June 10, 2011, is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 25.08.2011 sharmila