CRM-M No. 9071 of 2011 **** Renu Bala vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh Present: Mr. Bipin Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Standing Counsel for UT, Chandigarh. Mr. C. S. Rana, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the complainant. **** This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR No. 298 dated 24.09.2010, under Sections 307, 427, 506, 323, 148, 147 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh. On 25.03.2011 the following contention was noticed:- “Learned Senior Advocate has argued that the only reason for denial of regular anticipatory bail was that the petitioner had wrongly mentioned in the bail application that she was a housewife whereas she was a Government servant. As per learned Senior counsel this was not intentional but a communication gap.” Thereafter the arrest of the petitioner was stayed on 05.04.2011. Today Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for UT, Chandigarh, on instructions from SI Yad Ram,has stated that the petitioner has joined the investigation and no further recovery is to be made from her. Learned counsel for the complainant has, however, argued that the petitioner has not disclosed the names of the other persons who were involved in the incident but I find that the same are mentioned in the statement of the injured. In the circumstances interim order dated 05.04.2011 is made absolute and it is directed that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be CRM-M No. 9071 of 2011 -2- released on bail to the satisfaction of the investigating officer subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE May 03, 2011 sunita