CRM No.M-32506 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-1.12.2010 Harjit Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioners Harjit Kaur wife of Ranjit Singh and Nirmal Singh alias Nimma son of Harbans Singh, have applied for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other co-accused, namely, Mohinder Kaur, vide FIR No.36 dated 28.8.2010 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323 and 452 read with section 34 IPC IPC by the police of Police Station Sandaur, District Sangrur, 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 help 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 petitioners were directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Anayat Pal, has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from them. 5. It is not a matter of dispute that all the offences alleged against the petitioners, except the offence punishable under section 452 IPC, are bailable. CRM No.M-32506 of 2010 2 Whether the penal provisions of section 452 IPC are attracted on the facts of the present case, will be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. All the injuries attributed to the petitioners are simple in nature. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of their previous involvement in any criminal case. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed 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 petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 7. 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. 8. Needless to mention that if 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. 1.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge