Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. According to the F.I.R. the case of the prosecution is that a Crl. Misc. No. 11534-M of 2000 was filed by one Kamaljeet Singh in this Court. Another Crl. Misc. No. 11329-M of 2000 was filed by Lawyers for Human Rights through its Vice-President. In these cases, this Court gave following directions vide order dated 9.6.2000 :- "In the light of the discussion made above, it is hereby directed that the investigation into the circumstances leading to the death of Harpreet Kaur shall be conducted by the CBI. The SP, CBI, Chandigarh, is hereby directed to proceed with the investigation and in case the same is found to be the result of commission of an offence, the guilty should be brought to book. The inquiry shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." 2. In compliance with the orders dated 9.6.2000, a preliminary enquiry No. SI 1 2000 S 0001 dated 11.7.2000 was registered in Special Investigation Cell 1 of CBI, New Delhi. According to the F.I.R., the enquiry has revealed that Harpreet Kaur daughter of Bibi Jagir Kaur, President, SGPC and resident of village Begowal had an intimate love affair with Kamaljeet Singh son of Darshan Singh resident of village Begowal, Distt. Kapurthala. A secret engagement ceremony was conducted at Chandigarh on 6.9.1999. During the course of love affair, Harpreet Kaur had become pregnant. The said pregnancy was confirmed on 12.2.2000 by Dr. (Mrs.) Jyoti Rana of Rana Medical and Maternity Centre, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh. Bibi Jagir Kaur was opposed to the marriage between the two and she, therefore, allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mrs. Dalwinder Kaur, Paramjeet Singh, Nishan Singh and others to send her away from Chandigarh to Phagwara to avoid her meeting Kamaljeet Singh. They had decided to illegally detain Harpreet Kaur and cause her miscarriage with the knowledge that such an act was likely to cause her death. 3. The enquiry has further revealed that on 18.3.2000, Dalwinder Kaur, alongwith her driver Harvinder Kumar @ Binder had taken Ms. Harpreet Kaur to her residence in Phagwara on the pretext of taking her to Patiala for shopping for her marriage. She was compelled to stay at Phagwara against her wishes. 3. The enquiry has further revealed that on 18.3.2000, Dalwinder Kaur, alongwith her driver Harvinder Kumar @ Binder had taken Ms. Harpreet Kaur to her residence in Phagwara on the pretext of taking her to Patiala for shopping for her marriage. She was compelled to stay at Phagwara against her wishes. On 19.3.2000, Smt. Satya wife of Bhag Ram, maid servant of Dalwinder Kaur gave tea to Harpreet Kaur and on consuming the same, she started feeling giddy and became unconscious. Ultimately, this is stated to have resulted in her abortion. Thereafter, again Harpreet Kaur was kept in illegal confinement at the house of Dalwinder Kaur at Phagwara. ASI, Nishan Singh, PSO of the petitioner, Smt. Satya, Harvinder Kumar @ Binder, Sanjeev Kumar and others used to guard her during her illegal confinement. On 8.4.2000, Harpreet Kaur jumped out of a small window of the room and reached a place nearby Jalandhar from where she contacted Kamaljeet Singh and asked him to come and take her. Kamaljeet and his sister Manjeet Kaur took her to Sports School Rai, Sonepat on 8.4.2000, where they halted on 9.4.2000 at the house of one Smt. Kulwinder Chauhan. Kamaljeet Singh even contacted his family members and learnt that police officials had visited his house to make enquiries about his whereabouts. Harpreet Kaur also contacted her mother and protested against sending the police to the house of Kamaljeet Singh at Begowal. On assurance given by her mother, Harpreet Kaur accompanied by Kamaljeet Singh and his sister Manjeet Kaur, returned to Jasdil Mansion, Phagwara, on 10.4.2000. On that date, Kamaljeet Singh and Manjeet Kaur were dropped at village Begowal. Then, again Harpreet Kaur was illegally confined. On 20.4.2000, she was reported to have developed a state of acute dehydration due to vomiting and dysentery. The enquiry has revealed that she was not given any medicine nor she was taken to any doctor. She allegedly died around 2/2.30 a.m. in the intervening night of 20/21.4.2000. 4. After investigation, the CBI has registered a case against the petitioner and six others under Sections 304/344/313/201 IPC read with Section 120-B of the IPC. 5. Mr. Cheema, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the FIR would show that, at best, only an offence under Section 344 IPC for illegal confinement is made out. 5. Mr. Cheema, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the FIR would show that, at best, only an offence under Section 344 IPC for illegal confinement is made out. He has further submitted that the petitioner had also made an application for anticipatory bail on 8.11.2000 before the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala. On 9.11.2000, the arrest of the petitioner had been stayed. However, this application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, on 13.11.2000. Hence, the present petition. 6. Mr. Cheema has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. She is prepared to abide by any condition which may be imposed on her. 7. Mr. Rajan Gupta and Mr. R.M. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the CBI have taken a very strong exception to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, sufficient material has been collected by the Investigating Agency to prosecute the petitioner under Section 302 IPC as well. Consequently, the FIR is now under Section 302 IPC. 8. Mr. Tewari relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hamit Ansari and others v. State of Maharashtra, 2000(4) Crimes 60 to submit that the concession of anticipatory bail should not be granted in the cases where the accused is facing a prosecution under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel also relied upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora and another, 2000(1) Crimes 33 (SC), to submit that unless the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed by the Investigating Agency, she would not be justified in seeking anticipatory bail. Learned counsel also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 268 (SC) : 1997(7) Supreme Court Cases 187 to submit that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been interfering with the independent investigation of the crime by the C.B.I. She has given threats to Dr. Tarsem Singh, Dr. Jaswant Singh and Staff Nurse-Dalbir Kaur. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been interfering with the independent investigation of the crime by the C.B.I. She has given threats to Dr. Tarsem Singh, Dr. Jaswant Singh and Staff Nurse-Dalbir Kaur. These witnesses are going to be very material at the trial. They have made statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is threatening them to give affidavits stating that their earlier statements are not correct. Kamaljeet Singh, the alleged husband of the deceased Harpreet Kaur, is stated to have been granted police protection as he apprehends danger to his life at the hands of the petitioner. It is also stated that one complaint received by the CBI has been forwarded to the DGP, Punjab, for necessary action. 9. Mr. Cheema, in rebuttal has submitted that the above noted cases have not changed the law which has been settled by the Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench Judgment given in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1632. He also reiterated his earlier submissions. 10. At the beginning of the hearing, I had suggested to the learned counsel that let notice of motion be issued and the matter be argued on some other date. However, learned counsel on both the sides, suggested that the matter ought to be decided here now. Since, CBI is represented by two counsel and even the complainant is represented by Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate, I only issue formal notice of motion. The same has been accepted by the respective counsel appearing for the parties. 11. I have considered the entire matter with a great detail and anxiety. I am fully aware of the sensitive nature of the proceedings. I have also perused the record. It would not be proper, at this stage, to make any comments on the respective merits of the case, but prima facie, it would have to be seen that even if the FIR is taken at its face value, the prosecution has a long way to establish a case under Section 302 IPC. This apart, law has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbias case (supra). This apart, law has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbias case (supra). With regard to the discretion of the High Court, in para 14, the Supreme Court observed that "Generalization on matters which rest on discretion and the attempt to discover formulae of universal application when facts are bound to differ from case to case frustrate the very purpose of conferring discretion. No two cases are alike on facts and, therefore, Courts have to be allowed a ittle free play in the joints if the conferment of discretionary power is to be meaningful. There is no risk involved in entrusting a wide direction to the Court of Session and the High Court in granting anticipatory bail because, firstly, these are higher Courts manned by experienced person, secondly, their orders are not final but are open to appellate or revisional scrutiny and above all because, discretion has always to be exercised by Courts judicially and not according to whim, caprice or fancy. On the other hand, there is a risk in foreclosing of categories of cases in which anticipatory bail may be allowed because life throws up unforeseen possibilities and offers new challenges. Judicial discretion has to be free enough to be able to take these possibilities in its stride and to meet these challenges." In such circumstances, I am unable to agree with the submissions made by Mr. Tewari which has been reiterated by Mr. Rajan Gupta to the effect that whenever an allegation is made of an offence committed under Section 302 IPC, the petitioner cannot move Court for anticipatory bail. In fact, perusal of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Abdul Hamit Ansaris case clearly shows that no such general principle has been laid down. In that case, police had not been able to trace out the culprit at the first instance of the investigation. The names of the appellants had come forward subsequently. 12. In the present case, FIR has been registered after investigation. On repeatedly being asked by the Court, as to why the custody of the petitioner is required, the only answer given is that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented. Prima facie, I am of the view that whatever investigation is to be done, can be ensured by directing the petitioner to join investigation as and when required. On repeatedly being asked by the Court, as to why the custody of the petitioner is required, the only answer given is that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented. Prima facie, I am of the view that whatever investigation is to be done, can be ensured by directing the petitioner to join investigation as and when required. Furthermore, suitable conditions can always be imposed by the Arresting Officer to ensure that the investigation is not hampered. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she has been pressurising some of the witnesses to change their statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, it is vehemently argued by Mr. R.S. Randhawa, learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is the main accused and interested to hush up the matter. Having perused the entire file of the case, I do not see any justification for sending the petitioner into custody on the ground that she is now also accused under Section 302 IPC. 13. In cases, where recoveries are to be made from the accused person, the Investigating Agency may well be justified asking for custodial interrogation. In the present case, all that would be achieved by putting the petitioner behind bars is that she is to be confronted with the statements made by the witnesses. For this, it is not necessary that the petitioner shall be sent to custody. These statements can well be put to her even when she is on bail. 14. Mr. Tewari has laid a considerable amount of stress on the fact that merely because the petitioner is influential lady, she should not be granted anticipatory bail. Strong reliance has been made on the observation made by the Supreme Court in Anil Sharmas case, 1997(4) RCR (Crl.) 268 (SC) (supra). I am of the considered opinion that the Courts have to follow the old adage that however high a person may be, he/she is not above the law. At the same time, the Courts cannot lose sight of the fact that when allegations are made of political vendetta, the same should not be brushed aside. Merely because a person is active in politics and is holding high rank, should not per se lead to the persecution of that person. The Courts have to maintain a balance between public interest and individual liberty. Merely because a person is active in politics and is holding high rank, should not per se lead to the persecution of that person. The Courts have to maintain a balance between public interest and individual liberty. It is for this reason that it has been observed by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbias case as under :- "We see no valid reason for re-writing Section 438 with a view, not to expanding the scope and ambit of the discretion conferred on the High Court and the Court of Session but, for the purpose of limiting it. Accordingly, we are unable to endorse the view of the High Court that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in respect of offences like criminal breach of trust for the mere reason that the punishment provided therefor is imprisonment for life. Circumstances may broadly justify the grant of bail in such cases too, though, of course, the Court is free to refuse anticipatory bail in any case, if there is material before it justifying such refusal." 15. Having examined the matter, prima facie, I find that there is no material before this Court to justify custodial interrogation of the petitioner. 16. In view of the above, application for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of arrest, the Arresting Officer will release the petitioner on bail subject to his satisfaction. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer at New Delhi on 17.11.2000 at 11.00 a.m. The Investigating Agency is at liberty to move the Court for appropriate orders, if the petitioner fails to join investigation, as directed above. It is made clear that any observations made about the respective merits of the case of the parties are purely prima facie. These observations have been made merely to dispose of the application for anticipatory bail. These observations will not be taken into account in any subsequent proceedings.