Pushpinder Kaur v. Union Territory Of Chandigarh
!
"#$# %&'
()*+,
& -./0/
/
! "#
$ % ! %
&&&
/,1.2&
%
#()*
+ # '
% ,-.
%/0 ,-1 %#
# 14.10.2023 Sector 17, Chandigarh 406, 420 and 120B of IPC, 1860 3 $ # #
% %
.
,-/ % ' #.% %'
#0
$
"
%%
4
" " # %
//
#.
.
% $$#% . .5 6) 77780
. " / "
/ ## %.
+ # . !
,- "
#
/
$
//% #% .. % /
8$$#% . '
.
+
# '+ 9 "
# "
#
"
/
%
"
3:66373) ' %
#0 "
%'
4 .
/ + ##
. );77780 '
8
'
#.% % '
. ."
%#
'
%'
%
! %
/#
. "
7*7;373( )
% '
'
# %
% %.%#
# / % .%
8$$#%.
# "
.% %
% % /#
'
.
#/ /
8$$#% . /
$
#0
/ / % .%
#. .
./
+
##- # /
./
##/
+ #0 %
.
#0
< '
. 1
. "
' #.% / '
-'. #0
4 '
% % ' .'
3733,-
%
=
# %
9
#.. # '%
#(37 (75-
.
1
# #"/ #0
.
'
4
'
% 4.
Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted therein and learned State counsel has argued that as per the allegations an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was deposited by the complainant in the bank account of the petitioner and she had also received an amount of Rs. 15,000/- in cash from him. She has criminal antecedents and as many as eight other FIRs of similar allegations have been levelled against her. Her custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough investigation in the matter and for unearthing the mode by which the co-accused used to cheat innocent persons by making mis-representation that they would send their wards abroad. The co-accused Jyoti Mehra, Ravinder Singh and Manpreet Singh Brar have been extended benefit of regular bail and not prearrest bail and that too on the basis of some compromise having arrived at between the parties. The case of petitioner is not at parity with the coaccused. With these broad submissions, it is argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner has been extended benefit of bail in most of the cases which have been lodged against her except in FIR No. 137 dated 08.08.2023 registered at Police Station Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh. The co-accused Manpreet Singh Brar and Jyoti Mehra have been extended benefit of bail. 6.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.
7.
The petitioner is alleged to have connived with the co-accused Ravinder Singh @ Ravi and Manpreet Singh Brar who were owners of M/s BB Council Company engaged in the business of facilitating student visa and is alleged to have cheated the complainant and duped him of an amount of Rs. 6,13,000/- on the pretext of sending his son abroad on study visa. The co-accused Ravinder Singh and Manpreet Singh Brar had been arrested but have since been extended benefit of bail on the ground that a compromise had been entered into between the complainant and themselves and a petition for quashing of FIR qua them has been filed. Co-accused Jyoti
had also been extended benefit of regular bail. The petitioner is stated to be involved in seven more cases of similar nature. She is seeking benefit of pre-arrest bail. There are specific allegations against the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 35,000/- had been got deposited by the complainant in her bank account. Her custodial interrogation is required for unearthing her complicity with the co-accused in the subject crime. As such, her custodial interrogation is must. Moreso, no such extra ordinary or sparing
circumstance making out a case warranting exercise or powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been made out in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, I see no ground to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 7.
- /
#%
'
.
'"
%%'
# 4
.
# 8.
# .
'
.
%#
# 3
/4 '
()*+,