IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 31569 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: December 22, 2010. Harman Kaur and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) Crl. Misc. No. M- 36759 of 2010(O&M). Baldev Singh and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G., Punjab. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Both the aforementioned petitions have been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR CRM No.M-31569 of 2010 No.155 dated 12.09.2010 under Sections 363/420/406 IPC, registered at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 27.10.2010 in Crl. Misc. No.M-31569 of 2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.56216 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-31569 of 2010 Contends that petitioner no.1-Harman Kaur is wife of Balkaran Singh, cousin brother of complainant Veerpal Kaur and petitioner no.2-Darshan Kaur is maternal aunt of complainant and the other accused are father, brother, cousin brothers, sister and brother-in-law of the complainant. Further contends that in fact complainant remarried after death of her husband and her daughter was being brought up by maternal grand-father and he has also filed a civil suit against the complainant and her second husband regarding custody of minor child. Further contends that the present FIR has been got registered just to pressurize the petitioners and other accused. Further contends that three of the co-accused have already been arrested and granted regular bail. It is also contended that even minor daughter of the complainant had made a statement before the Court that she is residing happily with her maternal grand- father and does not want to accompany her mother. Notice of motion for 22.11.2010. However, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” 2 CRM No.M-31569 of 2010 This Court while issuing notice of motion on 16.12.2010 in Crl. Misc. No.M-36759 of 2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.65295 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-36759 of 2010 Contends that petitioner no.1-Baldev Singh is cousin's father-in-law of the complainant and petitioner No.2-Sukhdev Singh is father's elder brother of the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant re-married after death of her husband and her daughter was being brought up by maternal grand-father and he has also filed civil suit against the complainant and her second husband regarding custody of minor child. Further contends that present FIR has been got registered just to pressurize the petitioners and other accused. It is also submitted that three of the accused have already been arrested and granted regular bail. Further submitted that even minor daughter of complainant had made a statement before the Court that she is residing happily with her maternal grand-father and does not want to accompany her mother. Notice of motion for 22.12.2010. However, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. To be heard alongwith Crl.M.No.M-31569 of 2010.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to those orders dated 27.10.2010 and 16.12.2010. 3 CRM No.M-31569 of 2010 It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of Harman Kaur, Darshan Kaur, Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh are accepted and orders dated 27.10.2010 and 16.12.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners are, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 22, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 4