High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/43045/2017dismissed

Surjit Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2018-07-06Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-43045 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 06, 2018 Surjit Kaur and another

...Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Zorawar Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.330 dated 30.09.2017 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. During the pendency of the present petition, petitioner No.2 Vineet Gulati 2018.07.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Kamaljit Singh Walia has died, therefore, the present petition qua petitioner

CRM No.M-43045 of 2017 -2No.2 has become infructuous.

From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been got registered by Ranjit Kaur to the effect that Kamalajit Singh Walia and his wife Surjit Kaur took an amount of `13,45,000/- from her on the pretext of sending complainant's son Jaskaranveer Singh to Canada but they failed to fulfill the promise. Neither, they send Jaskaranveer Singh to Canada nor they returned the money. The FIR was registered after conducting enquiry and as per the enquiry report, accused also gave fake VISA and ticket of Canada etc.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and in view of the serious allegations in the FIR against the accused, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Petitioner Surjit Kaur is required for custodial interrogation.

Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed. However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on merits of the case.

July 06, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2018.07.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh