Balwinder Kaur alias Palwinder Kaur vs State of Punjab and Another

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition has been moved by Petitioner Balwinder Kaur alias Palwinder Kaur u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in a criminal complaint No. 395 of 10.11.2004, in which the Petitioner has been summoned to face the trial vide order dated 28.1.2010 for an offence under Sections 302, 34 IPC.

On 26.10.2010 this Court passed the following order:

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that earlier FIR regarding the same occurrence was lodged by Respondent No. 2 against Petitioner and another co-accused and however, Petitioner was found innocent by the police after investigation and the challan was filed against co-accused Surjit Kaur. Further contends that during trial of that FIR i.e. FIR No. 165 of 2005, Police Station Shri Hargobindpur, statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded by learned trial Court and an application u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure was moved on behalf of prosecution for summoning the present Petitioner as an accused to face trial along with co-accused Surjit Kaur and however, the said application was dismissed by learned trial Court vide Annexure P-4 and that the said order had become final as the same has not been challenged by Respondent No. 2. Further contends that trial in the said FIR is going on. Further contends that however on the same facts the present complaint has been filed by Respondent No. 2 after six years of the occurrence and the Magistrate has summoned the Petitioner to face trial for offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC vide Annexure P-7. Further contends that however as the State case as well as the present complaint have arisen out of same occurrence, they are to be tried together. Further contends that summoning order has been passed by learned Magistrate without taking into consideration the fact that earlier police challan regarding same occurrence was filed and the trial was going on. Further contends that Petitioner is ready to appear before learned Magistrate/ trial Court to face trial.

These facts have not been disputed by learned Counsel for the State.

In view of these facts, Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate, who summoned the Petitioner to face trial, within two weeks from today and on her so appearance, she be directed be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate.

Adjourned to 25.11.2010.

It has been stated by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner has already appeared before learned trial Court pursuant to said order and admitted to interim bail by learned trial Court on 9.11.2010. Copy of the order dated 9.11.2010 has also been placed on record. It is further contended that she will continue to appear before learned trial Court.

Learned Counsel for the State has not disputed these facts.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that Petitioner is likely to abscond or that she is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Petitioner Balwinder Kaur @ Palwinder Kaur is accepted and order dated 26.10.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the Petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to any conditions that may be imposed by learned trial Court.