Allowed

Navdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 May 2012CRM-M/10312/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana accepted the petitioner Navdeep Kaur s anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cheating and bigamy case. The court made the previous interim bail absolute, noting no grounds for absconding or witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner s anticipatory bail application accepted; interim bail made absolute subject to conditions in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Navdeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-10312 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 10312 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 10, 2012.

Navdeep Kaur.

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab.

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. R.C.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 107 dated 01.10.2011, under Sections 420/494/120B IPC, registered at police station Ajnala, Amritsar.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶17

CRM No.M-10312 of 2012

¶18

¶19

Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 11.04.2012 passed the following order:-

¶20

“Crl.Misc. No.21287 of 2012

¶21

Prayer made in the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for grant of exemption from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 and P-2.

¶22

In view of the averments made in the application, which is supported by affidavit, the Crl.Misc. Application is allowed. Crl.Misc.No.M-10312 of 2012

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had a run away marriage with main accused Danish Kumar and had appeared before the Human Rights Commission, Punjab. She was unaware of the fact that Danish Kumar was already married with the complainant Harvinder Kaur and had a child from the said marriage. It is pointed out that Danish Kumar and his parents have been released on bail by the trial Court on 19.03.2012. It is accordingly contended that there is no recovery which is to be effected from the petitioner and she herself has been taken for a ride.

¶24

Notice of motion for 10.05.2012.

¶25

In the meanwhile, it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner, she shall be released on bail by the arresting officer, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. which are as under:-

¶26

i) that she shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶27

ii)that she shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶28

iii)That she shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.”

¶29

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶30

CRM No.M-10312 of 2012

¶31

¶32

she has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 11.04.2012.

¶33

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner has joined the investigation and that she is no more required for any custodial interrogation.

¶34

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that she is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶35

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Navdeep Kaur is accepted and order dated 11.04.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶36

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

May 10, 2012. ‘om’

¶38

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Navdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjit Singh @ Pappu Vs State of Punjab

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Bashir Vs State of Haryana

Sukhjit Singh @ Sukha Vs State of Punjab

Moti Sagar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Varun Kumar Vs State of Punjab