Ramanpreet Kaur And ANR v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:-9.8.2021 Ramanpreet Kaur and another ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab, assisted by SI Sarabjit Singh.

(proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.09 dated 11.1.2021 at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

2.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Jaswinder Kaur wife of Late Sh. Shamsher Singh, wherein it is alleged that her husband had since expired and that her son Jatinder Singh is mentally retarded and she is taking care of him. The complainant alleged that her daughter Ramanpreet Kaur (petitioner No.1) and her son-in-law (petitioner No.2) while taking undue

( 2 ) benefit of the confidence she reposed in them, siphoned off huge amount of money. She alleged that the accused had misappropriated an amount of `27.5 lakhs which were the proceeds from sale of some land, her house and other articles.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is infact a family dispute amongst the parties and infact out of the alleged amount of `27.5 lakhs, the complainant does not dispute that the petitioners had purchased a house for the complainant at Nabha worth `11 lakhs and had also transferred an amount of `5 lakhs in her account.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners/accused and, in these circumstances, they do not deserve the concession of bail. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that both the petitioners have since joined investigation.

5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Having regard to the fact that the matter apparently arises out of a dispute amongst the family in respect of some property and that infact a substantial amount, which the complainant alleges to have been siphoned off stands well explained on account of the fact that a house worth `11 lakhs was purchased in the name of the complainant and another amount of `5 lakhs was deposited in her account, this Court does not find the instant case to be a case where custodial interrogation is warranted. The petition, as such, is accepted. It is ordered that the petitioners, in the event of arrest, be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioners shall join the

( 3 ) 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.

9.8.2021 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No