Allowed

Kamal Rani and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 May 2013CRM-M/13170/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mehender Singh Sullar, J. disposed of two connected anticipatory bail petitions filed in similar FIRs for cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy. Exercising powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court accepted the petitions and made the interim bail absolute subject to compliance with statutory conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for anticipatory bail accepted; interim bail made absolute subject to compliance of conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Kamal Rani and Ors. Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-13170 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM No.M-13170 of 2013 Kamal Rani and others .....Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Punjab .....Respondent

¶6

(2) CRM No.M-13192 of 2013 Gulshan Kumar .....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab .....Respondent

¶9

Date of Decision:10.05.2013

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr.Hardeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶12

Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶15

As, identical points for consideration to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions, arising out of the similar FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition.

¶16

The petitioners have directed the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, by means of FIR No.50 dated 16.02.2013, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Tripuri Town, Patiala, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

CRM No.M-13170 of 2013

¶18

¶19

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

¶20

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 present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

¶21

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on April 26, 2013 in CRM No.M-13170 of 2013:-

¶22

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that Kamal Rani(petitioner No.1) is wife, whereas Davinder Kumar(petitioner No.2) is son of complainant Ram Kishore and the petitioners have been falsely implicated by him in instant case and no indicated offences are made out against them. The argument is that Kamal Rani(petitioner No.1) was the owner of the property in question. She has sold the same to Jarnail Kaur, vide registered sale deed dated 03.02.2010. Moreover, the complainant was neither owner nor in any way connected with the property in dispute.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 10.05.2013. Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to his satisfaction.”

¶25

Sequelly, similar order was passed by this Court in connected petition bearing CRM No.M-13192 of 2013 on April 26, 2013.

¶26

At the very outset, on the instructions from ASI Joginder Singh, 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. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of

¶27

CRM No.M-13170 of 2013 3

¶28

Magistrate. Even, since the police has not submitted the final police report(challan), so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 8. 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 petitions for anticipatory bail are hereby accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by way of orders dated April 26, 2013 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶29

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant behalf.

¶30

May 10, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Kamal Rani and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Rani and Ors. 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 Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Arun Son of Badlu Ram Vs State of Haryana

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Sahab Din Vs Punjab Financial Corporation