CRM No.M-31113 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-23.11.2010 Jaspal Kaur daughter of Bhola Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.R.V.S.Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, A.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Jaspal Kaur daughter of Bhola Singh, has directed the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against her alongwith her other co-accused, namely, Shingara Singh, Jagjit Singh and Jagsir Singh, vide FIR No.198 dated 26.8.2010 for commission of the offences punishable under sections 420 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station City, Mansa, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 4. At the very outset, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Bhupinder Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and she is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from her. 5. What is not disputed here is that the prosecution claimed that petitioner only introduced the person, who used the double money to the CRM No.M-31113 of 2010 2 complainant. No other overt act or role is attributed to her. Moreover, the other three co-accused of the petitioner, have already been allowed bail by the Magistrate. All the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. The law of bail towards women is liberal. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as narrated here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of her arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) she shall make herself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) she 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) she will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 8. Needless to say that in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of her bail, in this relevant connection. 23.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge