Raj Rani v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 18.05.2024 RAJ RANI . . . . PETITIONER Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB . . . . RESPONDENT **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for Mr. G.S. Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Prayer in this petition filed under Section 438 CrPC is to grant anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0006 dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P1) registered under Section 420/120-B IPC at Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor, Distt. Moga.
2.
Status report by way of affidavit of Amarjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharamkot, District Moga on behalf of the respondent-State, has been filed.
3.
Complaint was lodged by Kuldeep Kaur, as per which her husband Bittu Singh wanted to migrate to Malaysia. He approached co-accused Simranjit Singh @ Jony residing in Malaysia, who assured that he will arrange the work done, as he had already done the same for number of families. Said Simranjit Singh @ Jony then asked the complainant to contact the petitioner-Raj Rani. It is alleged that an amount of ₹40,000/- was handed over to the petitioner and one Sukhwinder Kaur. Apart from this, on their asking, Bittu Singh got an
2024:PHHC: 070536 amount of ₹60,000/- converted into Malaysian currency and took another amount of ₹30,000/- in cash and reached Malaysia. It is alleged that coaccused Simranjit Singh @ Jony swindled the amount of ₹90,000/- from Bittu Singh on the pretext of arranging work from him, but despite lapse of more than six months, no work was arranged for Bittu Singh in Malaysia. During his stay in Malaysia, Bittu Singh fell ill and ultimately expired. It is also the allegation that before his death, when request was made to the petitioner to arrange sending back Bittu Singh to India, they had raised another demand of ₹1 lakh.
4.
Ld. counsel contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated; that allegations are against co-accused Simranjit Singh @ Jony, who is residing in Malaysia; that petitioner is not a travel agent; that allegation of payment of ₹40,000/- to her in cash is false; and that petitioner is ready to join the investigation. 5.
Ld. State counsel concedes the fact that allegation against the petitioner is to have received ₹40,000/- in cash and that account in which ₹10,000/- was deposited by the complainant is in the name of one Kuldeep Kaur. It is also conceded that Bittu Singh had been taken to Malaysia, where he expired on 11.02.2024.
5.
Having noticed the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations, but without commenting anything further on the merits of the case, petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of her arrest to the satisfaction of arresting officer, subject to her joining the investigation and co-operate in the same. She shall also abide by all conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.PC. In case of non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner,
2024:PHHC: 070536 respondent/State will be at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 18.05.2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes Whether reportable?
No