Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 662 (PNJ)

Chinder Pal Kaur v. Gulab Kaur

2007-03-26

MAHESH GROVER

body2007
Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the private complaint filed by respondent No. 1-Gulab Kaur under Sections 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 34 of the I.P.C. which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar. 2. Jagsir Singh, husband of the petitioner and son of the complainant is said to have died in the year 1995 leaving behind a Will dated 15.1.1993 in favour of his minor son-Gurmit Singh. The petitioner got the mutation entered pursuant to the said Will. 3. The mother-in-law of the petitioner, i.e. respondent No. 1 filed the aforementioned complaint with the allegation that the Will is a forged document. The petitioner has accordingly been summoned to stand trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not a beneficiary and she had only given an expression to the Will when she got the mutation sanctioned in favour of the minor son. He further contended that the petitioner had been granted pre-arrest bail on 14.3.2006 and that she had been appearing before the trial Court, but her prayer was declined on 7.8.2006 even though she had never abused the concession of bail. 5. On 4.9.2006, this Court had directed the petitioner to continue to appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing and was admitted to interim bail. 6. The application for regular bail was thereafter moved before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar, who has now dismissed the same vide order dated 21.3.2007. 7. In the backdrop of the aforestated facts, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the prayer for anticipatory bail having been rendered infructuous, the present petition may be treated as the one filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. as the regular bail application moved by the petitioner has since been dismissed. 8. The prayer is accepted in the interest of justice. 9. 8. The prayer is accepted in the interest of justice. 9. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had only given an expression to the Will and that there are counter-allegations in the shape of a complaint having been filed by the petitioner herself against the complainant, as also the fact that the deceased was the son of the complaint and the husband of the petitioner and so, they are related with each other and the fact that the petitioner is not a beneficiary of the Will, this petition is accepted and it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.