CRM No.M-30813 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.11.2010 Kamaljit Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, petitioners Kamaljit Singh alias Kanwaljit Singh son of Suchha Singh and his wife Narinder Kaur, the unfortunate parents-in-law of Amareet Kaur, have directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other co-accused and son Gurpreet Singh, by virtue of FIR No.155 dated 20.9.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC by the Police of Police Station Sadar Ferozepur. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 3. While issuing notice of motion, the petitioners were directed to join the investigation. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Jaswant Singh, has stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. 4. What is not disputed here is that the petitioners are the parents of Gurpreet Singh, husband of Amarjeet Kaur. The marriage of Amarjeet Kaur was CRM No.M-30813 of 2010 2 solemnized with Gurpreet Singh, 4½ years prior to the present occurrence. It is also not a matter of dispute that Amarjeet Kaur did not lodge the FIR, but it was her father Ujagar Singh complainant, who reported the matter to the police. The story put forth by the complainant, with regard to the abortion of his daughter Amarjeet Kaur was found to be false by the investigating agency. Only general and vague allegations are alleged against the petitioners. No overt act or specific role is attributed to them. The offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of their previous involvement in any criminal case. 5. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described 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, the present petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 6. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they 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) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 7. Needless to mention that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 16.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge