AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 262 wordsAlok Singh, J.—This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 30 dated 15.5.2010 under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station ''D'' Division, Amritsar, District Amritsar City.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued that Petitioners are jeth and jethani of the deceased and she has committed suicide after 13 years of marriage. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further states that no weapon is to be recovered from the Petitioners and the role attributed to the Petitioners is that they have caught hold the deceased while others have strangulated her.
Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2011(1) RCR (Cri) 126, has observed that irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided. Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala v. Raneef 2011(1) RCR (Cri) 381 has observed that in the event of rejection of the bail application, time spent in the jail during the trial cannot be restored to the accused in the event of acquittal of the accused by the trial Court.
Petitioners were granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 16.2.2011. However, they have not mis-used the bail.
Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. Order dated 16.2.2011 is made absolute, subject to the conditions mentioned u/s 438(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is clarified that Petitioners shall keep on co-operating in the investigation and if they fail to do so, Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to get the bail cancelled.
