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
15 paragraphs · 248 wordsAvneesh Jhingan, J
The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.102 dated 31.05.2019 under Sections 452, 323, 324, 427, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC (Sections 307,
326, 459 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Kapurthala, On 18th August, 2020, this court passed the following order:-
“Learned counsel contends that earlier co-accused of the petitioner (Harpreet Kumari) lodged FIR No.101 dated 30.05.2019 under Sections 354,
509 and 511 IPC (Annexure P-1) at Police Station Kotwali Kapurthala, District Kapurthala, against the complainant, namely, Darshan Kumar who
later on got the present FIR registered against Harpreet Kumari and her relatives. He has submitted that the petitioner is relative of Harpreet Kumari,
therefore, has been falsely implicated. According to him, the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was added later on.
Notice of motion for 01.12.2020.
Meanwhile, the petitioner shall join the investigation and would come present as and when called for and in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be
admitted to interim bail on her furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide
by the conditions as specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.â€
Learned State counsel on instructions submits that petitioner has joined the investigation and her custodial interrogation is not required.
In view of the statement made, the order dated 18th August, 2020 is made absolute.
The petition stands disposed of.