SUSHILA AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are seeking anticipatory protection. On an earlier date, this Court had noted that the petitioners Sushila (step mother-in- law of the victim) and Preetam @ Sonu (step brother-in-law of the victim) had been summoned on an application under Sec. 319 of the Cr.PC. This was pursuant to the statement given by PW-4 Ram Kishan; the Court had also noted that the statement of the daughter of the deceased Sneha recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr.PC also reflected the involvement of the present petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly points out that the statement of Sneha recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr.PC was available with the prosecution even at the time of filing of the charge-sheet.

(2.) Be that as it may, keeping in view the background of the case and the fact that the petitioners had been summoned on an application under Sec. 319 of the Cr.PC and on their undertaking that they will continue to appear before the trial Judge as and when the matter is taken up for hearing and it is also not the apprehension of the State that the petitioners will flee from justice, the petitioners are granted anticipatory protection and in the event of arrest the petitioners be admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of INR 15,000.00 each with one surety each of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer with condition that the petitioner will join investigation as and when summoned by him.

(3.) Application disposed off.