SUNITA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.28 dtd. 10/3/2023 (Annexure P-1) registered under Ss. 406, 420, 34 IPC at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

(2.) The present FIR came to be registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by Sonia D/o Raj Kumar to the SSP, Hoshiarpur and the same reads as under:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as she is the wife of the main accused Dilwar Ram. The entire dispute stems out of a failed matrimonial alliance between the complainant and Pardeep Kumar son of Ravinder Kaur and Baljit Singh, the co-accused. The financial transactions as referred to in the FIR were between the family of the complainant girl and the boy. Neither the petitioner nor her husband had any role to play in that regard. In fact, on the date of the marriage i.e. 10/8/2022, Pardeep Kumar the prospective groom and son of the co-accused suddenly fell down and became unconscious. Because of the same, the complainant and her family members got scared and after the boy regained consciousness, the complainant refused to marry the boy on the grounds that he seemed to be suffering from some ailment. The petitioner and her husband had been named in the FIR because her husband Dilwar Ram was a witness to an agreement to sell dtd. 15/3/2022 between the father of the complainant and one Gurchetan Singh in which the sale deed had not been executed on account of Government restrictions. As Dilwar Ram had been granted the concession of regular bail and the challan stood submitted against him, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required and therefore, she was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.