Allowed

Lakhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 May 2013CRM-M/13825/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana issued an order granting absolute anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Lakhwinder Kaur, in a murder conspiracy case. The court accepted the interim bail granted earlier and noted her cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

The interim anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 08.05.2013 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Lakhwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No. M-13825 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No. M-13825 of 2013 Date of Decision: 17.05.2013

Lakhwinder Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Rajpreet Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State.

¶13

Mehinder Singh Sullar , J. (Oral)

¶14

Petitioner Lakhwinder Kaur wife of Mahaveer Singh has preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against her alongwith her other co-accused, by means of FIR No.26 dated 13.03.2013, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station City Malaut, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, 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

¶17

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

¶18

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order

¶19

CRM No. M-13825 of 2013

¶20

¶21

was passed by this Court on 08.05.2013:-

¶22

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence, at the relevant time. Moreover, neither any role or specific overt-act is attributed to her. She was subsequently involved in the present case for hatching the criminal conspiracy by the complainant in order to wreak vengeance. The argument is that moreover the controversy involved in the instant petition is identical to the one raised and decided, in Crl. Misc. No. M-12412 of 2013, by way of order dated 25.04.2013, by this Court. Heard.

¶23

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 17.05.2013.

¶24

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.”

¶25

At the very outset, learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Vipin Kumar, has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. She is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. The conclusion of the trial will naturally take a long time. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that Rani Kaur @ Jinder Kaur and Satnam Singh, co-accused of the petitioner, have already been allowed the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court by means of order dated

¶26

CRM No. M-13825 of 2013

¶27

¶28

25.04.2013 in CRM No.M-12412 of 2013. Therefore, I see no reason not to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner under much better set of circumstances.

¶29

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 08.05.2013 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶30

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

¶31

17.05.2013 sk

¶32

(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge

Lakhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhwinder 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

Balwant Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Jagjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Amar Singh Vs State of Haryana

Ram Pal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Paramveer Singh @ Fanna and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab