← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/10711/2022dismissed

Promilla v. State Of Punjab

2022-03-14Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

     

  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 



Date of decision: 14.03.2022 Promilla

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

        



    

****            

        

  

Through the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 176 dated 15.12.2021, registered under Section 420/34 IPC, at Police Station Nangal, District Rupnagar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady of 64 years of age and she has falsely been involved in the present case; that the dispute is of civil nature; that the alleged agreement was executed on 10.11.2014 for land measuring 9.25 marla, whereas the present FIR was registered on 15.12.2021 i.e. after a gap of more than seven years; that as alleged, the petitioner introduced herself to the owner of the property, but in the aforesaid agreement, it was clearly mentioned that she will get the sale deed executed from the real owner and that the petitioner was having no intention to cheat the complainant.

He further submits that earlier, Shiv Kumar approached this Court vide CRWP-11074-2021 for protection of his life and liberty at the MANGAL SINGH 2022.03.15 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

     

    hands of the private respondents; that the said petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, to decide his representation dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure P-2), vide order dated 24.11.2021.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the paper-book.

In the aforesaid agreement to sell dated 10.11.2014, it is specifically mentioned by the petitioner that she had agreed to sell the land at the rate of Rs. 2,55,000/- with Shiv Kumar and has received Rs. 2 lakhs as an earnest money.

There are specific allegations against the petitioner that she and co-accused were not the owners of the land in question, even then they had agreed to sell the same to the complainant and received Rs. 13 lakh as earnest money from the complainant and at one stage, when the complainant came to know regarding the cheating, he had suffered a brain stroke and been admitted to DMC Ludhiana and suffered got 60 % disability. Considering the very nature of the allegations contained in the FIR, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.      



 14.03.2022 

 

!"

 # !" MANGAL SINGH 2022.03.15 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document