Neeta vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Neeta @ Sunita, wife of Dharma, has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against her along with her other co-accused, vide FIR No. 220 dated 29.06.2014, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 506 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Safidon, District Jind.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, 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 11.07.2014:-

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner was empty handed and was stated to have caused simple injuries at the back(non-vital part) of the complainant with brick bat. The argument is that the main injury subject matter of offence punishable u/s 307 IPC is attributed to main accused Amit Kumar (non-petitioner).

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 22.07.2014.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of her arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit her to bail on her furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction.

At the very outset, on instructions from HC Rajesh Kumar, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. She is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. The main injury subject matter of offence punishable u/s 307 IPC is assigned to main accused Amit Kumar(non-petitioner). There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report(challan) against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts & 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 petitioner by means of indicated order by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of her bail in this Court.