Sham Lal vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate, who appears on behalf of the complainant to assist the Deputy Advocate General, is granted permission to participate in the proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant is habitual in filing false complaints before the Police authorities. She submitted complaints in the months of July, September and December, 1997 before the Police of U.T. Administration as well as Ludhiana and in all the complaints there was a compromise. Now in the month of April 1998 she has levelled allegations which are totally false. The counsel submits that the petitioners have already joined the investigation in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court.

The anticipatory bail application has been opposed by the learned D.A.G. Punjab as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, who submitted that the dowry articles of the complainant have been misappropriated by the petitioners and bail should be declined to them irrespective of the fact that the petitioners have joined the investigation.

After considering rival contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 should be allowed anticipatory bail as two of them are ladies and their custodial interrogation would not be in public interest. Petitioner No. 2 is the old aged fatherinlaw of the complainant, and Parveen, petitioner No. 5, is hardly a boy of 17 years.

Resultantly, while declining the bail application of petitioner No. 1 Sham Lal, I confirm the directions dated 5th June, 1998, and direct the Investigating Officer that in the event of arrest of petitioners Nos. 2 to 5, they shall be released on bail. The said petitioners are directed to join the investigation. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner, whatsoever. They shall not leave the Country without the prior permission of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. They shall surrender their passport, if any, before the Investigating Officer. Any discovery of fact made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act shall be admissible against the petitioners.

Further directions are given to the learned Magistrate to decide the regular bail application of petitioner No. 1 within two days from the making of the same. Petitioner No. 1 shall surrender before the police immediately.

Copy of the order be sent to the S.H.O., Police Station, Focal Point Ludhiana, and copy of the order be also supplied to the counsel for the petitioner as well as to the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, dasti.