Harpreet Kaur @ Katto vs State Of Punjab

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against her vide FIR No.99 dated 12.6.2020 under

Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib, wherein offence under 326 IPC was

added later on.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Nirmal Singh wherein it is alleged that he had got installed CCTV cameras in his house but somehow his

neighbour ASI Gurcharan Singh and other members of his family raised objection to the same and on account of which he changed the directions of

the cameras but despite the same they were not satisfied. It is alleged that on 11.6.2020 Baby wife of ASI Gurcharan Singh and one lady namely

Harpreet Kaur @ Katto who also resides at his house came in front of complainant’s house and started abusing him and other members of his

family. It is alleged that Baby threw stone at the complainant but the same missed him. It is further alleged that in the meantime Harpreet Kaur @

Katto came there carrying a plastic container and put some acid like liquid in it and threw the same at the complainant and on account of which the

clothes worn by the complainant turned yellow.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations as levelled in the FIR do not seem to be true inasmuch as, had the petitioner really

sprinkled any acid upon the complainant, then there would have been some burn injuries, but the the MLR does not reflect presence of any burn injury

upon the complainant.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that the clothes worn by the complainant have got examined from FSL, which has

reported presence of some acid.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

This Court finds that although the petitioner is alleged to have thrown acid but the MLR does not reflect presence of any burn injury.

The learned State counsel has informed that pursuant to interim directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has since joined investigation and that

her custodial interrogation is not required.

In view of the aforesaid submission, the petition is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 18.8.2020 are hereby

made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating

Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.