RUPESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the identical points for consideration to grant the concession of anticipatory bail or otherwise to petitioners Rupesh wife of Rajesh Goswami (mother -in -law) and Rajesh Goswami son of D.S. Goswami (father -in -law) of complainant Preeti Goswami, are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions i.e. (CRM No. M -43678 of 2013) (for brevity "the 1st petition") and CRM No. M -1512 of 2014) (for short "2nd petition"), arising out of the same case/FIR, vide this common order to avoid the repetition of facts.

(2.) THE petitioners have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr. PC, in a case registered against them along with their son and main co -accused Puneet Goswami (husband), by means of FIR No. 439 dated 21.11.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 406, 506 and 498 -A read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.