Allowed

Harleen Walia @ Rubla v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jul 2012CRM-M/10475/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge decision grants anticipatory bail to Harleen Walia @ Rubal under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court notes the petitioner is married to the complainant's daughter and has joined investigation. An interim stay on arrest is made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim stay on arrest in FIR No.16 dated 11.03.2011 made absolute subject to compliance with conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Harleen Walia @ Rubla Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-10475 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-10475 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:July 27, 2012

¶5

Harleen Walia @ Rubal ....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab .....Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶9

Present: Mr.Harinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶11

¶12

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶13

Petitioner-Harleen Walia @ Rubal son of Balwinder Singh, has

¶14

preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, by virtue of FIR No.16 dated 11.03.2011, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A read with Section 511 IPC, by the police of Police Station Bareta, District Mansa, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶16

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in this context.

¶17

As is evident from the record that, Kirti Goyal, daughter of the complainant, has performed the marriage with the petitioner and they filed a joint protection-petition(Annexure P-4) in this Court. The protection was granted to

¶18

CRM No.M-10475 of 2012

¶19

¶20

them by this Court, through the medium of order dated April 09, 2012 (Annexure P-5), rendered in Criminal Misc.No.M-10215 of 2012. Under these circumstances, whether the indicated offences are made out or not against the petitioner, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

¶21

Not only that, during the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rajan Gupta, J.) passed the following order on April 24, 2012:-

¶22

“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the basis of allegation that petitioner has abducted the same girl, another FIR Has been registered at police station City Mansa. According to him, investigation in FIR No.16 dated 11.03.2011 was already pending. Thus separate FIR would be without any authority.

¶23

Faced with this situation, learned State counsel prays for some time to seek instructions and address arguments. On his request, adjourned to 12.07.2012.

¶24

Arrest of the petitioner pursuant to FIR No.16 dated 11.03.2011 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

¶25

Learned State counsel shall be at liberty to seek instructions from Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa and address further arguments.

¶26

A copy of the order be handed over to learned State counsel under the signatures of Bench Secretary.”

¶27

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Bhagwan Singh, learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no more required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case.

¶28

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim order dated April 24, 2012 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶29

CRM No.M-10475 of 2012

¶30

¶31

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this regard.

¶32

July 27, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Harleen Walia @ Rubla v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harleen Walia @ Rubla 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

Charanjit Ram Vs State of Punjab

Garib Dass Vs State of Punjab

Lal Chand and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Sarabjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manjinder Singh Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.