Sonpreet Kaur v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 03.07.2020 Sonpreet Kaur ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present:

Mr. G.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

**** ALKA SARIN, J.

Heard through video conferencing.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in FIR No.284 dated 09.09.2019 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 473 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 471/473 were deleted vide GD No.19 dated 20.11.2019), registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo Sabhu, Bathinda.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and totally false and baseless allegations have been made against her. It has further been contended that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.09.2019. It is also

contended that challan has been presented and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has contended that very serious allegations have been made against the petitioner. It has further been contented by the State Counsel that the allegations in the FIR against the petitioner are that the complainant-Sukhwant Singh came in contact with the petitioner, who told the complainant that she was an employee of the High Court and she had good connections with the senior officers and that if anybody needed a job, she would be able to get them a job. It is further alleged in the FIR that the complainant and his son met with the petitioner and her father and they assured them that they would be able to get the complainant's son a job for which they would have to make a payment of 10,00,000/- ( Ten Lacs), the deal was eventually finalized at 8,00,000/-.

An amount of 5,00,000/- is alleged to have been paid to the petitioner, her father and brother. In their presence, the complainant is also alleged to have discussed the job prospects for his nephew Yuvraj Singh son of Dalbir Singh and son of his brother-in-law, Dilbag Singh son of Manjeet Singh. The petitioner is alleged to have stated that the complainant could give them the petitioner's contact number and that they could contact her directly. It is further alleged that the petitioner also took money from the above-said persons, however, she did not provide a job to anybody and further refused to refund the money. It has further been contended by learned State counsel that in view of the very serious allegations, it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

The record reveals that very serious allegations have been made against the petitioner, it also it has come in the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda that as per the detailed report prepared by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner had received 4,33,000/- from Hardeep Singh, 5,50,000/- from Yuvraj Singh, 4,49,000/- from Dilwara Singh, 5,00,000/- from Tarsem Singh and 10,00,000/- from Jagjit Singh, on the pretext of providing jobs to their family members. Not only this, copy of the official list of candidates bearing forged signatures of Registrar of this Court is also available on the police file.

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, I do not deem this to be a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

It is, however, made clear that any observation made in the present order would not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

03.07.2020 Yogesh Sharma ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No