High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/37977/2015dismissed

Veerpal Kaur @ Muskan v. State Of Punjab

2016-01-19Mr. Justice Krishna Murari2 pages

CRM-M-37977-2015 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37977-2015 (O&M).

Decided on: January 19, 2016.

Veerpal Kaur @ Muskan ..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondent(s) * * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT None for the petitioner.

Ms.H.K.Athwal, DAG. Punjab.

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).

Petitioner is a lady who seeks concession of prearrest bail in a case registered at the instance of complainant Narotam Bansal who has levelled allegation that he was introduced by co-accused of the petitioner namely Kamal another lady to visit her house. When the complainant visited the house of the petitioner, the other lady Kamal was present along with petitioner. The complainant was confined in a room. Obscenity was attributed to him resulting in entry of three other persons Vijay Kumar, Sikander Singh and Pali who extorted a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. Again a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid which was arranged by the friend of the complainant Sanjay Kumar.

CRM-M-37977-2015 (O&M) Vide order dated 15.11.2015, the petitioner was directed to join investigation as an argument was raised on behalf of the petitioner that she had not been attributed any specific role except that she was present on the spot along with main culprit. On the instructions of ASI Karam Singh, it has been informed that despite interim directions, the petitioner has not joined investigation.

I have considered the role attributed to the petitioner. She is alleged to be present on the spot along with any other lady who had actively participated and pressurised the complainant to part with money. The petitioner is apparently a member of gang who prima facie appears to have indulged in extortion by adopting the immoral and unethical modes. Non-joining of investigation by the petitioner is also another factor for declining the concession of pre-attest bail to the petitioner. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed.

Nothing said in this order will prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek concession of regular bail in accordance with law.

(M.M.S. BEDI) January 19, 2016.

JUDGE rka RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2016.01.21 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document