IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 9737 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 14, 2010. Neeta wife of Shri Manjit Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Union Territory, Chandigarh. ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.D.Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.385 dated 10.09.2009 (mentioned in the FIR as 10.09.08), under Sections 376/420/506/313/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station 39, Chandigarh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. A coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 01.04.2010 passed the following order:- “This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.385 dated 10.9.2009 under Sections 376, 420, 506, 313, 120-B IPC registered with Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh. Learned counsel contends that bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been allowed to co-accused, Brij Mohan, Pushpa and Manjit. Case of the petitioner is identical. Notice of motion for 5.7.2010. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner will be released on interim bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer and when required; (ii) The petitioner 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) The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 01.04.2010. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner has joined the investigation and that she is no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that she is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 2 Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Neeta, is accepted and order dated 01.04.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 14, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3