Prem Lata vs State of Haryana .

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner who apprehends that she is likely to be arrested in connection with FIR No. 323 dated 5.8.1996 of Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Baldev Singh for the petitioner and learned Advocate General Mr. H.S. Hooda assisted by Advocates Mr. I.S. Balhara and Mr. N.S. Bhinder for the State.

The translated version of the FIR against the petitioner is incorporated in the petition itself and looking to the version, the allegations against the petitioner are that petitioner and her husband demanded Rs. 2 lacs for giving job to the complainant''s son and that they agreed to accept an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/. Complainant states that she paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ to Chand Singh Ahlawat (Petitioner''s husband) and the petitioner. However, after the said amount was paid, Chand Singh Ahlawat started finding faults with them. The husband of the petitioner took Kuldip the son of the complainant to Chandigarh and on reaching the Civil Secretariat he got prepared his own entry card and also one for Kuldip. But after moving here and there nothing could be achieved except disappointment. It is further alleged that Chand Singh Ahlawat also told him not to worry and that he would return the entire amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ alongwith interest, and requested for another opportunity till the Congress government was in power. Complainant further states that on 14.4.1996 Rajinder Singh and complainant went to Sh. Jaswant Singh Chaudhary and explained to him the entire situation in this connection and he immediately wrote a letter in the name of Sh. Chand Singh Ahlawat for returning the amount. On seeing the letter, Chand Singh Ahlawat asked the complainant to wait further upto dated 8.5.1996 till the declaration of results of Parliamentary and State Assembly elections. Ultimately, after a long time he refused to return the amount. Not only did he not return the amount but also he threatened the complainant for committing the murder. Complainant further states that when the amount was demanded from the petitioner and her husband, they threatened to murder them.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that a cock and bull story has been concocted against the petitioner and her husband. She was not allowed to join her duties and, therefore, the petitioner is being harassed by the police.

Learned Advocate General has vehemently opposed the grant of this bail. According to him she is not disclosing the information and that she has stated that her advocate had asked her not to state anything to the police. He has also argued that the petitioner and her husband have got Rs. 3.50 lac in their back account and Rs. 2 Lac in fixed deposit. He has further stated that they are JBT teachers and their telephone Number is 43663 and she has phoned to the complainant. There is an entry card which shows that the husband of the petitioner took Kuldip the son of the complainant to the Secretariat to get the appointment letter.

The question at present is not whether the petitioner is guilty or not but whether she should be granted anticipatory bail or not. The petitioner is a woman. Of course it is argued by the learned Advocate General that she did not disclose certain information. That of course should not be the ground for rejecting the anticipatory bail application. No provision is shown as to how the Court can compel her to disclose the same. Moreover order of interim anticipatory bail is very guardedly given and it has been left open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and the concerned Magistrate would decide it on merits. This of course is not a direction from this Court but the rights of the parties are kept open or to say in other words the rights of the parties are clarified by the said order. Therefore, granting of anticipatory bail in the terms embodied in the order of interim anticipatory bail will not in any case hamper the prosecution or the investigation of the case. The allegations regarding the political motive against the petitioner are immaterial so far as this stage is concerned for consideration of the question of grant of bail.

Due to the reasons aforesaid, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, of course, with the conditions imposed thereto. The order of interim anticipatory bail dated 23.8.1996 can be made absolute. Therefore, the said order is made absolute on the same terms and conditions.