SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ranpreet Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 16 October, 2019

CRM-M-29980-2019 (O M) -1-

CRM-M-29980-2019 (O M)
Date of Decision:16.10.2019

Ranpreet Kaur …Petitioner


State of Punjab …Respondent


Present: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Arora, Advocate for
Mr. RVS Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.



This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438

Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.78

dated 04.07.2019 under Section 406 IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station

City-2 Mansa, District Mansa. The petitioner apprehended her arrest at the

hands of Police.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of

the Court to the order dated 17.07.2019 whereby while issuing notice of

motion to the respondent-State, the interim protection was extended to the

petitioner. The said order reads as under:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the dispute between two managements is pending before
this Court in CWP No.22041-2013 and one of the
managements is of the school namely Dashmesh Public
School, Mansa, where the petitioner worked as
1 of 2
20-10-2019 03:12:40 :::
CRM-M-29980-2019 (O M) -2-

Principal. It is contended that the allegations contained
in the FIR at best may be minor irregularities and no
offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is attracted.
According to him, the FIR is highly belated and the
custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be

Notice of motion for 16.10.2019.

In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join the
investigation and would come present as and when
called for and in the event of arrest, she shall be
admitted to interim bail on her furnishing personal and
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also
abide by the conditions as specified under Section 438
(2) SectionCr.P.C.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that in

deference to the said order, the petitioner submitted herself before the Police

and joined the investigation. According to her, the petitioner cooperated

with the Police Authorities during the investigation and furnished requisite

bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer.

Learned State counsel on instructions from HC Gurpreet Singh

does not dispute this fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation. He

further states that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation

for the time being.

Considering above, the petition is allowed and the interim bail

granted by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2019 is made absolute.

16.10.2019 (MANOJ BAJAJ)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
20-10-2019 03:12:41 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation