Amar Kaur vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical points to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of indicated criminal petitions bearing CRM No. M-18290 of 2014 titled Amar Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab (for brevity "the 1st case") and CRM No. M-18539 of 2014 titled Nirmal Singh @ Narmail Singh Vs. State of Punjab (in short "2nd case), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts.

Petitioners, have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them along with other co-accused, vide FIR No. 26 dated 04.03.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 325 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Bhagwantpura, District Ropar.

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on May 26, 2014, in 1st case:-

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that marriage of complainant Gurpreet Kaur was solemnized with Narmail Singh, son of petitioner No. 1 in the year 2003. Moreover, all the main allegations are assigned to main accused Nirmail Singh. The argument is that Amar Kaur widow of Rachan Singh (petitioner No. 1) is mother in-law, whereas, Sukhjit Kaur daughter of Rachan Singh (petitioner No. 2) is married sister in-law of the complainant and have been falsely implicated in this case. Very vague and general allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to them. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another,

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 17.07.2014.

Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction.

Sequelly, similar order was passed on May 29, 2014, in 2nd case, as well.

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Inder Pal Singh, learned State Counsel, has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of 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 trial, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are accepted. The interim bails already granted to the petitioners, by virtue of indicated orders of this Court, are hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. At the same time, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this Court.