IN THE HGIH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr Misc M-38467 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.2.2011. Smt Mukesh and anr ….petitioners Versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Present: None for the petitioners. Mr GS Sandhu, AAG Haryana. Mr Sanjay Vahisht, Advocate for the complainant. S.S.SARON, J Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner-1 – Smt Mukesh has not been attributed any role in the FIR. In the statement of the injured, the role attributed to her is of causing a stick blow on the hands and on the back of the injured which have been declared simple in nature. Petitioner-1 is a lady. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Mohinder Singh of PS Central Faridabad, submits that petitioner-1 has joined the investigation and her custody is not required for the purposes of investigation. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition and submits that petitioner-1 is not disclosing the whereabouts of Neel Kamal – petitioner-2 whose application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed on 30.12.2010. Cr Misc M-38467 of 2010 2 It may be noticed that petitioner-1 is a lady. The injuries attributed to her are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the State submits that her custody is not required for the purposes of investigation. In the circumstances, the interim bail granted to petitioner-1 – Smt Mukesh vide order dated 30.12.2010 is made absolute. This petition qua petitioner-1 – Smt Mukesh stands disposed of accordingly. 10.2.2011 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge