Daljeet Singh @ Daljit Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.11.2024 Daljeet Singh @ Daljit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present:- Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

***** MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has made 2nd attempt to seek the relief of regular bail in the criminal case arisen out of FIR No.33 dated 24.01.2023 registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, under Sections 376, 420, 506, 384 IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is pertinent to mention here that the petition bearing CRM-M No.28004 of 2023, as moved by the petitioner earlier for seeking the same relief, had been dismissed vide the detailed order (Annexure P-4) passed by this Court on 31.10.2023. 2.

Bereft of unnecessary details, the allegations, as levelled by the complainant-prosecutrix (here-in-after to be referred as 'P') in the subject FIR, are that she had started living with the petitioner in relationship as he

-2had promised to marry her but in July 2022, he got implicated in a criminal case and had remained in jail and after being released from there, he refused to marry her and he had, thus, sexually exploited her and later-on, she also came to know that he had stolen and sold her gold and diamond jewellery and had cheated her.

3.

Written Reply and the Status-Report (by way of the affidavits of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), have already been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel in the present petition and have also gone through the file carefully.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is behind the bars since 25.01.2023 and though besides the instant case, the petitioner was, reportedly, involved in two more criminal cases but he has already been acquitted in one of those cases and in the wake of the afore-mentioned latest/freshly arisen circumstances, he deserves the relief as prayed for in this petition.

6.

However, the above-raised contentions are devoid of any merit because in view of the gravity of the allegations as levelled by 'P' against the petitioner in this case, mere afore-referred period of his incarceration does not suffice at all to extend the relief of regular bail to him. Moreover, as specifically mentioned in the Status-Report, the examination of 'P' and her husband, as the prosecution witnesses, has not yet been concluded. As regards the acquittal of the petitioner in one of the two above-mentioned

-3criminal cases, this fact can also, by no stretch of imagination, be construed to be a cogent ground to grant the relief as sought by him in this petition. 7.

As a sequel to the fore-going discussion and keeping in view the gravity of the offence/crime as alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that he (petitioner) does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Resultantly, the petition in hand stands dismissed accordingly.

25.11.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) neetu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable:

No