Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 318 (PNJ)

Rupinder Kaur @ Pinder v. State of Punjab

2012-02-23

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.: (Oral) - Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case arising out of FIR No.0052 dated 24.08.2011 registered at Police Station Tibber, District Gurdaspur under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC. 2. Amanpreet Kaur complainant-aggrieved wife was married with Gurcharan Singh @ Captain in year 2010. Subsequently, a matrimonial dispute had occurred. Petitioner No.1-Rupinder Kaur @ Pinder is stated to be unmarried sister of husband of the complainant, whereas petitioner No.2-Harjit Kaur is mother-in-law of the complainant. 3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, on December 1, 2011, had passed the following order: “Heard. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 is the sister and petitioner No.2 is the mother of the husband of the complainant. No injury has been attributed to the former petitioner and only a simple injury has been attributed to the latter petitioner which was found on the little finger of the hand. It is also to be noted that both the petitioners are women. Notice of motion for 27.1.2012. In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioners in the FIR mentioned in the petition, they shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.” 4. It has been stated during the course of arguments that Gurcharan Singh @ Captain-husband, who had caused grievous injury, has been arrested and after the period of his police remand was over, has been released on regular bail. 5. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioners have not joined the investigation and the recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected. 6. The investigating agency had ample opportunity to recover the dowry articles when husband of the complainant was arrested and police remand was obtained. 7. 5. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioners have not joined the investigation and the recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected. 6. The investigating agency had ample opportunity to recover the dowry articles when husband of the complainant was arrested and police remand was obtained. 7. Considering the relationship of the petitioners with the complainant, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in this case is not called for. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is accepted. The interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated December 1, 2011 is made absolute and it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer. However, they shall continue to appear before the investigating agency as and when called-for till filing of a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. They shall also abide by the conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the petitioners shall be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ------------------