JASBIR KAUR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are women, and therefore, they have to be released on bail. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies on an order passed by the Supreme Court (Annexure P2). A perusal of the order passed by the Supreme Court shows that there in the co-accused had been released on bail. In the facts and circumstances of that particular case, the Supreme Court had granted bail. A perusal of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in this case, shows that even the FIR was not registered for a considerable period of time as the opposite side was able to influence the police. The FIR was only registered after a petition was filed in this Court seeking a direction to the S.S.P. for conducting the enquiry into the matter. The trial Court has also found that the grievous injury has been caused by a sharp edged weapon. The weapon is yet to be recovered. The allegations against the petitioners are that they have stolen articles and trolley belonging to the complainant. These articles are yet to be recovered. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. It would be difficult to read a mandate in Sec. 437 of the code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that bail has to be granted to the accused merely because the accused happens to be female. In all cases, the facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration I find that this is not a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. Bail refused.