Criminal Misc. No. M-11883 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-11883 of 2009 Date of Decision: 5.5.2009 Suman Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 99 dated 24.3.2009 registered at Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar, under Sections 366 & 34 IPC. In the present case, FIR has been lodged by Lekh Raj Sharma. He has stated in FIR that his daughter Bobby had been abducted by Ajay Sharma. Ajay Sharma is husband of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that infact it is the husband of the petitioner who had eloped with Bobby. Petitioner had lodged a complaint (Annexure P1) to the Incharge, Chowki Bawa Khel, Jalandhar, wherein she stated that her husband had left the house with Criminal Misc. No. M-11883 of 2009 2 Bobby and had taken away her jewellery weighing 12 tolas and sale proceeds of plot i.e. Rs.4,00,000/-. Petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail which was declined by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. It was noticed in the impugned order that petitioner has been running a racket, therefore, there was connivance on her part. Notice of motion was issued in order to verify whether any racket is being run by the petitioner or not? Counsel for the State, on instructions from Lakhbir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, has stated that petitioner is not involved in any other case till today and no other complaint has been received against her. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that petitioner is involved in running of any racket rather her husband had deserted her and had gone away with the daughter of the complainant. On the asking of the Court, counsel for the State submits that Petitioner is named as accused by invoking Section 120-B IPC. Counsel for the State further submits that petitioner has not come forward to assist the Investigating Agency in regard to complaint (Annexure P1) submitted by her. Taking these facts into consideration, pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner till filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. On submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. petitioner shall furnish regular bail-bonds to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. However, petitioner shall join investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer and she shall also abide by the conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. No. M-11883 of 2009 3 With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 5, 2009 “DK”