Rupinder Singh Sidhu and another v State of UT (Chandigarh) and another
Punjab And Haryana High Court
21 June 2013
Criminal Misc. No. M-19787 of 2013
The Judgment was delivered by : Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
1. Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, Rupinder Singh Sidhu and Balwinder Kaur, who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 406, 498-A read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.275, dated 19.05.2013, registered at Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 11.02.2012 and thereafter, a male child was born on 01.04.2013 out of the said wedlock. Respondent No.2-complainant was not having good relations with her husband, therefore, she consumed poisonous substance on 18.05.2013 and as soon as it came to the notice of the petitioners, respondent No.2-complainant was immediately shifted to the hospital by them. He further submits that there is no other person in the house to take care of the infant child left by respondent No.2/complainant at the house of the petitioners. He further contends that the father of petitioner No.1, i.e husband of petitioner No.2, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, he submits that he does not press the present petition on behalf of petitioner No.1-Rupinder Singh Sidhu, husband of respondent No.2-complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant have no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners for withdrawal of the petition qua petitioner No.1.
Dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner No.1-Rupinder Singh Sidhu.
4. Learned counsel for the State, however, oppose the grant of bail to petitioner No.2, Balwinder Kaur.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there are serious allegations against petitioner No.2, therefore, she might not be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.
Heard.
Petitioner No.2-Balwinder Kaur is a lady and is a teacher in Govt. school. She is unlikely to run away from the investigation or trial. The conduct of petitioner No.2 that she took respondent No.2/complainant to the hospital reveals that certain things have been concealed by the complainant while lodging the present report. The forceful administration of the poisonous substance to respondent No.2- complainant would be a moot point during the course of investigation or trial. The custodial interrogation of petitioner No.2 does not appear to be mandatory in the present case.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner No.2-Balwinder Kaur has also to take care of her grandson, i.e. infant son of respondent No.2- complainant, and there is no other lady in the house, therefore, the present petition is allowed.
6. In the event of her arrest, petitioner No.2-Balwinder Kaur, shall be released on bail subject to her furnishing of personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
Petitioner No.2 shall join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down u/s. 438(2), Cr.P.C.
Petition allowed
