RAJESHWARI Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 14.6.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, is taken on record. Crl.Misc.No.39173-M of 2006 Counsel for the petitioners contends that vide order dated 14.6.2006, the petitioner's husband and her daughter have been granted anticipatory bail. THE petitioner has been declined bail, on the ground that some jewellery articles, may have been entrusted to her. It is contended that though, the petitioner is the mother-in-law, no such entrustment was ever made to her.

(2.) NOTICE of motion to the standing counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh, for 7.9.2006. Meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, she shall be released on interim anticipatory bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction, subject to the following conditions :-