Yash Kumar Jain vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of indicated criminal petitions bearing CRM No. M-14496 of 2013 titled Yash Kumar Jain Vs. State of Punjab (for brevity "the 1st case") and CRM No. M-15614 of 2013 titled Neeta Jain Vs. State of Punjab (for short "the 2nd case"), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts. Petitioners-Yash Kumar Jain and his wife Neeta Jain, unfortunate parents-in-law of the complainant Rozy Jain, have preferred separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them, vide FIR No. 25 dated 19.04.2013, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Women Cell, District Patiala, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (L.N. Mittal, J), has passed the following order in 1st case on May 04, 2013:-

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant, who is daughter-in-law of the petitioner, left the petitioner''s house along with her husband on 27.10.2003 after taking her articles vide writing (Annexure P-1). It was also pointed out that the petitioner, vide affidavit dated 23.12.2003 (Annexure P-2), disowned his son i.e. husband of the complainant. It was also submitted that the complainant had earlier made complaint in the year 2006 to the police at Patiala, but thereafter, the complainant, vide writing dated 09.01.2007 (Annexure P-3), regretted and tendered apology for having lodged the said case at Patiala, which had since been withdrawn by her, and took away her remaining articles vide writing dated 09.01.2007 (Annexure P-3) mentioning that now, no dowry article remained with the other side i.e. petitioner. It was also submitted that writings Annexures P-1 and P-3 have been signed by complainant''s husband also.

Notice of motion for 25.07.2013.

Meanwhile, the petitioner, if arrested, shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when required by the police and shall also comply with other conditions specified in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sequelly, similar order was passed in 2nd case, by this Court on May 13, 2013 as well.

At the very outset, on the instructions from SI Mangal Jit Kaur, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. It is a strange case where husband is not named as an accused by the complainant. Learned State counsel further submitted that during the course of investigation, the police has found the petitioners as innocent, were exonerated and the cancellation report has been prepared to cancel the present criminal case. There is no history of their (petitioners) previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. 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, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of order dated May 04, 2013 (in 1st case) and May 13, 2013 (in 2nd case), are hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.