Crl. Misc. -M No.20641 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No.20641 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.8.2011 Kulwinder Kaur ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. The allegation against the petitioner is that she was accompanying two other persons, one of whom was property dealer and the other was wearing police uniform, when the bag of the complainant containing ` 8 lacs was snatched. The accused in the FIR were trying to settle a deal for sale of land but in fact they snatched the bag and ran away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR as it is only mentioned that one Binder was accompanying Amar Nath one of the accused who identified her as his wife. The petitioner is a widow having two minor children. There is no role attributed to her in the entire episode. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that on verification from the area where she lives, it was found that the petitioner is known as Binder as well. He further submitted that two other co-accused who were arrested, had also confirmed the fact that the petitioner was accompanying them. ` 1,69,000/- have been recovered from two accused arrested till date. One is Harmesh Lal alias Bittu, property dealer and other is Surender Singh. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner merely on the ground that she is a lady and has two minor children to support. There are allegations in the FIR that twice the petitioner was accompanying the other Crl. Misc. -M No.20641 of 2011 -2- accused when the property deal was being settled. The case set up by the petitioner that she is not known as Binder, was not found to be correct on investigation by the police. The two other accused arrested had also confirmed the fact that the petitioner was accompanying them. Considering the aforesaid facts available till date, no case is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 4.8.2011 Judge Meenu