Manjeet Kaur v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-24316-2019 & CRM-M-38955-2019 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : December 11, 2019 1.
Criminal Misc. No. M-24316 of 2019 (O&M) Manjeet Kaur ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent 2.
Criminal Misc. No. M-38955 of 2019 (O&M) Ramesh Kumar ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh Present :
Mr. JS Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-24316 of 2019 Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-38955 of 2019 Ms. Trishangali Sharma, AAG, Haryana Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral) Since above detailed two regular bail applications one by Manjeet Kaur and other by Ramesh Kumar have arisen in the same
CRM-M-24316-2019 & CRM-M-38955-2019 -2very FIR are being taken up together for disposal. The present case was got registered on the statement of a girl then aged around 17 years 10 months. The complainant claims that she was married to one Roop Singh who is lodged in jail. It is in the year 2018, the complainant claims that she was left by her relative with Parveen wife of accused Ramesh who runs a Beauty Parlour at her place. It is alleged that the said Parveen used to entertain persons in her home and often used to offer the prosecutrix to these people as well. It is thereafter the minor girl was left in the care of accused Manjeet Kaur who promised her to teach her tailoring and similar fate welcomed the prosecutrix there as well. The girl claims that one night while she was physically assaulted and confined in a room, Manjeet Kaur was entering into a deal with somebody to sell her off for Rs 50,000/- and thereafter the girl ran away from the home on 1.3.2019 leading to the registration of the present case.
Mr. JS Dhaliwal, learned counsel for petitioner Manjeet Kaur has argued that Manjeet Kaur had initially registered an FIR on 1.3.2019 against the present complainant for having committed theft at her place and the present case is counter-blast to her allegations to escape her prosecution.
CRM-M-24316-2019 & CRM-M-38955-2019 -3Mr. Gaurav Singla, learned counsel for Ramesh Kumar petitioner has argued that it was simplicitor a money dispute as the prosecutrix used to work in the Parlour at her house and had taken money on loan which she refused to return and to thwart the recovery of the same, the present case was got registered. Going through the submissions, to the specific query of this Court, counsel for the State could not convince what specific allegations have come about against petitioner accused Ramesh Kumar and the only semblance of evidence are against his wife Parveen. Moreover, there are only vague insinuations of forcing the deserted lady who claims to be minor and otherwise alleged to be major of forcing her into life of prostitution.
As far as case of Manjeet Kaur reflects that 13 days prior to the registration of the present case she had got registered an FIR against the complainant for decamping her money and costly items while she was away. Thus, a debatable issue arises if the present case against her is a counter-blast which can only be adjudicated at the trial. Both the petitioners are behind the bars sing a long time. Culpability, if any, shall be determined at the trial which is not likely to be concluded in near future, no purpose will be served by retaining the petitioners in jail.
CRM-M-24316-2019 & CRM-M-38955-2019 -4regular bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Sirsa.
The present petitions stand disposed off accordingly. The observations made herein above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case as these are purely for the disposal of the present bail applications.
( Fateh Deep Singh ) December 11, 2019 Judge 'tiwana'
Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No Whether Reportable ?
Yes/No