Allowed

Kanta Rani v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2013CRM-M/12905/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court accepted the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a dowry harassment case. The interim bail granted earlier was confirmed as absolute, noting the petitioner joined the investigation and main allegations are against her son.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail is accepted and the interim bail is made absolute subject to Section 438(2) conditions.

Kanta Rani Vs State of Punjab — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-12905 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-12905 of 2013 Date of Decision:- 14.05.2013

Kanta Rani

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Raj Preet Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶13

Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶16

Petitioner-Kanta Rani wife of Kewal Krishan, unfortunate mother-in-law of complainant Jyoti, has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against her along with (her son) Naresh Bansal co-accused, vide FIR No.76 dated 20.03.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 313, 498-A & 406 read with Section 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station City Sangrur, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶18

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going

¶19

CRM No.M-12905 of 2013

¶20

¶21

through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶22

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following

¶23

order was passed by this Court on April 26, 2013:-

¶24

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the petitioner is mother-in-law of the complainant Jyoti. Very vague and general allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to the petitioner and no indicated offences are made against her. The argument is that moreover the main allegations are assigned to Naresh Bansal, husband of the complainant & son of the petitioner, who was arrested, interrogated and recovery of dowry articles was affected from him.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 10.05.2013.

¶27

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.”

¶28

At the very outset, on the instructions from SI Gurjant Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the 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 cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to Naresh Bansal (son of the petitioner), who was arrested, interrogated and allowed regular bail by this Court. There is no history of her previous involvement in any other criminal case. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶29

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court,

¶30

CRM No.M-12905 of 2013 3

¶31

by virtue of order dated April 26, 2013, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶32

Needless to mention that, 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 respect.

¶33

May 14, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

Kanta Rani v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanta Rani 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

Paramjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Devender Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Lakhi Ram Vs Raj Pal Singh Suhag

Yunus @ Nusa Vs State of Haryana

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Liaqat Ali Vs State of Punjab