IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 08.03.2011 Tripti Lokesh .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG Haryana for the respondent – State Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the complainant 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in a case FIR No. 309 dated 31.8.2010 under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 IPC (Section 307, 120-B IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Parao, Ambala Cantt., District Ambala. Petitioner is unmarried sister of Naresh and is stated to be student of M.D. (Ayurveda) at Ahmedabad. This Court vide order dated 3.1.2011 has granted interim bail in favour of the petitioner – unmarried sister-in-law of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in compliance of order dated 3.1.2011, petitioner has joined the investigation. Crl. Misc. No. M-12 of 2011(O&M) 2 Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG Haryana on the instructions of ASI Dhanpat Singh has stated that petitioner has joined the investigation and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application and stated that since husband of the complainant (petitioner's brother) is absconding, therefore, petitioner should not be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel has further stated that unless and until petitioner is taken in custody, husband of the complainant (brother of the present petitioner) shall not appear before the Investigating Officer. I do not agree with the argument of learned counsel for the complainant. Petitioner shall not be given in the police/judicial custody simply because her brother is absconding. Since, custodial interrogation is not requested by the prosecution, therefore, I am inclined to make interim order dated 3.1.2011 absolute. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. However, petitioner shall abide by the conditions mentioned under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (ALOK SINGH) 08.03.2011 JUDGE reena