Hardeep Kaur vs State of Haryana

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 147, dated 25.7.2010, under Sections 302, 323, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 25.1.2012, passed the following order:

Crl.M.No.5215 of 2012

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M.No.M-2443 of 2012

Contends that initially the case was registered against four persons, i.e., husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Further contends that three of the accused, i.e., husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law already faced trial and, however, as no material witnesses supported the version of prosecution, the accused were acquitted by learned trial Court vide judgment, Annexure P4, dated 11.8.2011. Further contends that even there was no material regarding recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the same witnesses are against the present petitioner. Hence, it is contended that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail and that she is ready to face trial. He has also placed reliance upon Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal v. State of Punjab, 2011(2) RCR (Cri) 453.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 1.3.2012.

However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to surrender before learned trial Court within two weeks from today and if she so appears and applies for regular bail, she be admitted to interim bail subject to conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court.

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has already appeared before learned trial Court and granted interim bail on 2.2.2012. He has further submitted that petitioner is ready to appear continuously before learned trial Court and face trial.

These facts have not been disputed b y learned State counsel.

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.

In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 25.1.2012, granting interim bail to petitioner-Hardeep Kaur, is, hereby made absolute subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court.

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.