CRM No.M-29934 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-9.11.2010 Gurdeep Kaur w/o Avtar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, petitioner Gurdeep Kaur wife of Avtar Singh, has instituted the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against her alongwith her other co-accused, namely, Balwinder Singh son of Hardeep Singh and others, by virtue of FIR No.76 dated 22.7.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Salem New Baradari, Distt.Jalandhar. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone 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. 3. While issuing notice of motion to the respondent on 8.10.2010, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel contended that petitioner has been implicated only on the ground that she is beneficiary of the property in dispute vide impugned sale deed, which was executed through the attorney. The argument is that complainant Mohinder Pal (vendor) directly executed the sale deed in favour of petitioner. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 9.11.2010. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, she shall be released on bail on her furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, the petitioner is directed to make herself available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating CRM No.M-29934 of 2010 2 Agency.” 4. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Rajinder Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and she is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from her. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner is beneficiary of the property in dispute and complainant Mohinder Pal (vendor) directly executed the sale deed in her favour. All the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. The law of bail is liberal towards the women. 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 petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 6. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of her arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) she shall make herself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) she 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) she will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 7. Needless to mention that in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of her bail, in this relevant connection. 9.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge