Crl.Misc No M- 8118 of 2010 Bachan Kaur and another V. State of Punjab PRESENT: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for complainant. *** The present petition has been filed on behalf of Bachan Kaur and Babu Singh for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 221 dated 25.12.2009 under Sections 307/498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga. While issuing notice of motion on 19.3.2010, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant and they are residing separately, as is clear from the ration-card and voter list annexed as Annexure P-1 and P-2 respectively, with the petition. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners have also disowned their son. Learned counsel also contends that the co-accused has also filed Crl.Misc.No. M-1468 of 2010 which is fixed for hearing on 9.4.2010. Notice of motion to A.G. Punjab, for 9.4.2010. To be heard with Crl.Misc.No. M-1468 of 2010. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. Crl.Misc No M- 8118 of 2010 [2] They shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. They shall also comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C, which are as under: (i)that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii)that the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii)that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant have nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the complainant as they were residing separately and moreover they have also disowned their son. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have joined the investigation and are no more required for further investigation and no recovery is to be effected from them. Learned counsel for the State has also not controverted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since the petitioners have joined the investigation and are no more required for further investigation and no recovery is to be effected from them, the interim directions issued by this Court on 19.3.2010 are Crl.Misc No M- 8118 of 2010 [3] made absolute. However, they shall comply with the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) April 9, 2010 JUDGE raghav