Anil Garg and Others vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioners-Anil Garg son of Daya Nand Garg and others, have preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., in a case registered against them, vide FIR No. 10 dated 11.01.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 306 & 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station City-I, Abohar, District Fazilka.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on April, 11, 2014:-

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that complainant-Monika Garg and her husband were putting undue pressure and were illegally demanding share in the shop/property in question. Anil Garg son of Daya Nand Garg (petitioner No. 1) was left with no alternative but to file the suit for declaration against them. Subsequently Ved Garg-husband of the complainant committed suicide and petitioners were falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case in order to wreak vengeance.

The argument is that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken to be true at its face value as such, even then, no offence u/s 306 IPC is made out against the petitioners, in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in cases Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 537 and Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 196. The argument further proceeds that although during the course of investigation, petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were declared innocent by the police but still their bail application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the trial Court.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent.

At this stage, Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Addl. A.G., Punjab on behalf of respondent-State and Mr. Lalit K. Gupta, Advocate appear and accept notices on behalf the complainant and seek time to argue the matter.

Adjourned to 30.04.2014 for arguments, at the request of counsel for the complainant.

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.

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Punjab 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. 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, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of order dated April 11, 2014, is 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 respect.