Mukesh Lata vs State Of Haryana

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J

Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.374 dated 21.06.2019, registered at Police Station Samalkha, District

Panipat, under Sections 406,420,468,471 and 506 IPC.

On 26.08.2020, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:-

“Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.374 dated

21.06.2019 under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the complainant had alleged identical allegations against her husband namely Radhey Shyam and son

Aman Bansal. The allegations against the petitioner & co-accused is that they are not executing the agreement to sell. Learned counsel for the

petitioner further submits that the husband of the petitioner was granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court while deciding CRM-M-30376 of

2019 vide order dated 19.07.2019 and the sons of the petitioner have also been granted the same benefit by this Court while deciding CRM-M-24253

of 2020 decided on 25.08.2019 and CRM-M-34167-2020, decided on 22.08.2019 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the

allegations against all the accused are identical but the said benefit of anticipatory bail has been declined to the petitioner by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Panipat vide his order dated 10.08.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the allegations against the petitioner are identical with that of other co-accused, the

petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail as the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and cooperate with the same.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, who has joined the proceedings through video conference, keeping in view the

service of advance copy of petition, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Naresh Kumar Choker, Advocate, who has also joined

the proceedings through video conference, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious as she has taken money from the complainant and

she alongwith other co-accused is not executing the agreement to sell.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State supports the said contention of learned counsel for the complainant.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as learned counsel for the complainant concedes that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Radhey

Shyam and sons of the petitioner, namely, Aman Bansal and Ashwani Bansal, against whom similar allegations have been alleged in the FIR, have

already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

Once, it is not disputed that the allegations against all the four accused, who belong to a same family, are identical and the husband and son of the

petitioner have already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court, the benefit of anticipatory bail can only be denied to the petitioner in

case any differentiating fact is brought to the notice of this Court so as to deny the petitioner the benefit, which has already been extended to the co-

accused.

In the present case, no differentiating fact has been pointed out by the learned State counsel or by the learned counsel for the complainant.

In the absence of any differentiating fact, all the co-accused against whom, the similar allegations are alleged, are entitled for the same relief. That

being so, the petitioner, has made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail as granted to co-accused by this Court, as recorded earlier.

The petitioner is directed to join the investigation forthwith.

In the event of her arrest, she shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer on her furnishing bail

bonds/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction subject to the following conditions:-

i) That she shall make herself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required.

(ii) That she shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade him from disclosing the said facts to the Court or to any police officer.

(iii) That she shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iv) That she shall abide by all the conditions as enshrined under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

Adjourned to 24.11.2020.

It is, however, made clear that after the petitioner join the investigation, in case any incriminating material comes against the petitioner, the respondent-

State will be at liberty to file appropriate application seeking the custody of the petitioner in case, the same is needed.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner has

joined the investigation.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Jatinder Kumar, submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and he is not required for any

further investigation.

In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.