Crl.Misc No M- 1685 of 2010 Amanpal Kaur Vs. State of Punjab PRESENT: Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for complainant. Crl.Misc.Nos. 19347 -48 of 2010. Crl.Misc. are allowed. Documents with the Crl.Misc.are taken on record. Crl.Misc No M- 1685 of 2010 The present petition has been filed on behalf of Amanpal Kaur for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 221 dated 25.12.2009 under Sections 307/498-A/406 IPC registered ate Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga. While issuing notice of motion on 20.1.2010, the following contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were noted down by the Court: “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is neither related to the family of the complainant nor there is any allegation for commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC and moreover the petitioner has nothing to do with the allegations made in the FIR. It has further been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was registered after delay Crl.Misc No M- 1685 of 2010 [2] of more than 20 days of the occurrence and no injury was attributed to the petitioner” At the time of issuing notice of motion, notice regarding stay was also issued by the Court. Again the case came up for hearing on 17.2.2010 and the following order was passed: “ On 20.1.2010, while issuing notice of motion, following contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded: “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is neither related to the family of the complainant nor there is any allegation for commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC and moreover the petitioner has nothing to do with the allegations made in the FIR. It has further been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was registered after delay of more than 20 days of the occurrence and no injury was attributed to the petitioner” Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and vague allegations are levelled against her. He further contends that the petitioner is nether in relation with the complainant nor she is concerned with the alleged incident. Learned counsel also contends that co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted the Crl.Misc No M- 1685 of 2010 [3] concession of anticipatory bail by this Court and the petitioner is also ready to join the investigation. Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application on the ground that serious allegations are there in the FIR against the petitioner. He further contends that Bahal Singh, who saved the complainant from the canal and saw the petitioner on the place of occurrence, also got recorded his statement in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondent-State also opposed the bail application on the ground that serious allegations are there against the petitioner in the FIR. Since, the co-accused of the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, let the petitioner also join the investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. She shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. She shall also comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C, which are as under: (i)that the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii)that the petitioner 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; Crl.Misc No M- 1685 of 2010 [4] (iii)that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court, Adjourned to 26.2.2010. To be heard with Crl.Misc.No.M-1468 of 2010.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 17.2.2010, the petitioner has joined the investigation and she is no more required for further investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner is neither related to the complainant in any manner and she has nothing to do with the allegations made in the FIR and no specific allegations have been alleged against the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has also not opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for further investigation, the interim directions passed on 17.2.2010 are made absolute. However the petitioner shall comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) April 9, 2010 JUDGE raghav