Suman Khandelwal vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Suman Khandelwal wife of Subhash Khandelwal, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against her along with her husband and main accused Subhash Khandelwal and son Nitesh Khandelwal, vide FIR No. 115 dated 07.05.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Gobindgarh Mandi, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, 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 July 10, 2014:-

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner is neither a partner nor in any way connected with the firm of her husband. She has been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case being the wife of Subhash Khandelwal (co-accused), in order to put pressure and wreak vengeance.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 23.07.2014.

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 ASI Charanjit Singh, learned State counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. She is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. All the main allegations of offences in question are assigned to main accused Subhash Khandelwal (non-petitioner) who was arrested, interrogated and was released on regular bail by the trial Court. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by virtue 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, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for pre-arrest bail. At the same time, 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.