CRM No.M-7015 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-7015 of 2011 Date of Decision:22.03.2011 Smt.Anju Yadav ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Having exercised her right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, petitioner-Smt.Anju Yadav has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail, in a case registered against her along with other co- accused, vide FIR No.260 dated 28.04.2010, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Central Faridabad, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Concisely, complainant-Smt.Lata Devi, widow of Late Karan Singh claimed in her statement, which formed the basis of FIR, that in the month of March, 2008, their relatives Tarun and Chhattar Pal came to enquire about the welfare and ailment of her husband-Karan Singh and offered any service for help. Karan Singh-husband of the complainant had asked them to borrow some money for his treatment and household expenditure. CRM No.M-7015 of 2011 2 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that the co-accused of the petitioner have fraudulently obtained the signatures of her husband and executed various documents transferring his land in their favour. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she is also beneficiary of the land measuring 11 kanal 10 marlas by virtue of Deed No.14508 dated 15.09.2008. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-Lata Devi, the present case was registered against the petitioner and her other co-accused, for the commission of offence and in the manner described here-in-above. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. 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 context. 6. At the very outset, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. On instructions from SI Rajbir Singh, learned State Counsel has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Moreover, the petitioner is stated to be a beneficiary of one indicated Deed and no other overt-act or specific role is attributed to her. 7. What is not disputed here is that complainant-Lata Devi has already entered into an agreement(Annexure P-4), which would go to show that both the parties have agreed not to litigate in future in regard to the property mentioned therein. 8. In this manner, since the petitioner has already joined the investigation, the matter has already been compromised between the parties and 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 CRM No.M-7015 of 2011 3 trial of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory is allowed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the Arresting Officer would admit her on bail, on her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety to his satisfaction, subject to the conditions that (i) she shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer 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 shall not leave India without the prior permission of the trial Court. 10. Needless to mention here that if the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation or try to breach the terms and conditions of agreement (Annexure P-4), the complainant/prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of her bail, in this respect. The petition is disposed of accordingly. March 22, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE