SANDYA Vs. STATE BY THE PEENYA POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE came to be registered in Crime No.596 of 2013 by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 120(b), 364(A), 344, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against seven accused. This petitioner is arraigned as accused No.7. The Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet and the charge that is levelled against accused No.7 is that the accused 1 to 6 have wrongfully confined the deceased victim for ten days in the house of this accused.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that except this allegation, there are no overt -acts attributable against this petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner is a lady and she has got right for consideration of her case for anticipatory bail. In support of his submission the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Pawanbala Wife ofPrem Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2015 Cr.L.J., 2678 wherein it is held that the Courts has to consider two aspects, viz. (1) reasonable apprehension of witness being tampered with; and (2) the larger interest of public or the State. The learned Counsel seeks for grant of anticipatory bail and also submits that in case of grant of bail, she will have to co -operate with the investigating officer and also appear before the trial Court on all occasions.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader submits to dismiss the petition, as it is a heinous crime committed by the petitioner and what has been held by the High Court of Himcahal Pradesh in the case of Pawanbala (supra) will not apply to the case on hand. Heard both. Investigation is complete and charge sheet is filed. The overt act allged against this petitioner is that she has facilitated the accused 1 to 6 to confine the deceased victim for ten days in her house. Ultimately, accused 1 to 6 have taken the victim from the house of accused No.7 and committed the offence of murder. With regard to the question of right of a woman for consideration of case for grant of anticipatory bail, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Pawanbala (supra), in the Courts of judgment, at paragraph 7 has observed thus: