SHAM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . S.S. Brar, Advocate, who appears on behalf of the complainant to assist the Deputy Advocate General, is granted permission to participate in the proceedings.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant is habitual in filing false complaints before the Police authorities. She submitted complaints in the months of July, September and December, 1997 before the Police of U.T. Administration as well as Ludhiana and in all the complaints there was a compromise. Now in the month of April 1998 she has levelled allegations which are totally false. The counsel submits that the petitioners have already joined the investigation in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court.

(3.) AFTER considering rival contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 should be allowed anticipatory bail as two of them are ladies and their custodial interrogation would not be in public interest. Petitioner No. 2 is the old aged father-in-law of the complainant, and Parveen, petitioner No. 5, is hardly a boy of 17 years.