Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 428 (PNJ)

Preeti Dhillon v. State of Punjab

2014-02-25

K.C.PURI

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri. J (Oral):- The petitioner, unmarried step sister of husband of the complainant is seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegations against the petitioner are that she along with others demanded jewelry. He has further submitted that in the FIR, it is alleged that on 12.8.2013 at 6.00 p.m., Kuldeep Kaur, Ramandeep Kaur and Preeti Dhillonpetitioner under a planned conspiracy took the complainant to canal for feeding the fishes. It is further alleged that Ramandeep Kaur pushed her from behind in the canal and Rajpal Singh saved her. It is further submitted that there is no evidence in respect of that occurrence. The FIR was recorded on 11.1.2014 after a period of 4 months of the alleged occurrence. 3. He has further relied upon authority (i) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [2011(2) Law Herald (SC) 1333] : 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 126 and on the strength of the same, it is submitted that the exact role attributed to the petitioner is to be seen at the time of deciding anticipatory bail application. 4. He has also relied upon the authority Som Mittal vs. Govt. of Karnataka, [2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 942] : 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 880 and on the strength of the same, it is argued that unmarried sister of the husband, where there is no specific allegation, should be allowed concession of anticipatory bail as sending her behind the bars would make her chances of marriage bleak. 5. Learned State counsel has submitted that the complaint was submitted on 16.9.2013 i.e. 1 Month and 4 days after the occurrence. However, he is fair enough to concede that there is no medical evidence to corroborate the version of the complainant that she had been pushed in the canal by Ramandeep Kaur. 6. So, considering whole of the circumstances, in my view, it is a fit case to allow concession of anticipatory bail. 7. Consequently, the petition for grant of anticipatory bail stands accepted. 6. So, considering whole of the circumstances, in my view, it is a fit case to allow concession of anticipatory bail. 7. Consequently, the petition for grant of anticipatory bail stands accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. :- i) that the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required ; ii) that the petitioner 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 petitioner shall not leave the country, without prior permission of the Court and shall surrender her passport, if any.