Sukhwinderjeet Kaur And ANR v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 10.07.2025 Pronounced on: 22.07.2025 SUKHWINDERJEET KAUR AND ANR.

...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr.Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 25.06.2022 Tripuri, District Patiala 406/419/420/467/468/ 471/120 B of IPC 1.

The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 528/482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

2.

Per paragraph 19 of the bail application and the reply, the petitioners have the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Date Offenses Police Station 1.

20.09.202 458/448/380/148/149 of IPC City Kapurthala, Punjab 3.

The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

"xxx xxx xxx xxx That the brief facts of the present case/FIR No. 168 (supra) are that one application dated 28.03.2022 was moved by Rani Kaur (complainant) before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala against Sukhwinderjeet Kaur (petitioner no. 1), Manager, S.K. Finance, Kapurthalawith the allegations that the complainant-Rani Kaur got sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on 18.11.2011 from a Finance Company situated at ChhottiBaradari, Patiala to construct her house by equitable mortgage of the sale deed of her plot as security. After few days of the approval of the loan, Sukhwinderjeet Kaur (petitioner no. 1), who claimed herself to be the Manager of S.K. Finance

-2Company, Kapurthala came to meet the complainant and told her that she would get loan approved for the construction of her house, for which she required sale deed of her house. Upon which, the complainant told her that she had already got the loan approved and the sale deed was with the aforementioned finance company which had provided loan to her and she would only get it back after paying the entire loan amount. At this Sukhwinderjeet Kaur (petitioner no. 1) told the complainant that she would get approved her Emergency loan of Rs.1.25,000/- online through NAVI App and thereafter, she sent an OTP on her son's mobile number to apply the online loan and she said that they would get this payment online because this loan was online, But after receiving OTP, when the aforesaid Sukhwinderjeet Kaur (petitioner no.

1) met them, then she gave Rs.1.25,000/- in cash instead of online payment and clicked the photo and after that she came at Chhotti Baradari to get sale deed and to give the loan amount the complainant. After getting the sale deed on 14.12.2021, Sukhwinderjeet Kaur (petitioner no. 1) said that they had to write an agreement for receiving the loan and took the complainant and her son to Booth No. 150 at Mini Secretariat, Patiala, wherein she told the son of the complainant to stay at canteen by making an excuse and she took the complainant to Booth No. 150, upon which, complainant became suspicious as she knew that the sale deeds were written in these booths. When the complainant enquired from Sukhwinderjeet Kaur (petitioner no.

1), she silenced her and, in the meantime, the boy present on the booth told the complainant regarding Sukhwinderjeet Kaur (petitioner no. 1) that sale deed has to be done there in the name of Rani Kaur. From which, the complainant came to know that Sukhwinderjeet Kaur (petitioner no. 1) was playing fraud upon her and when the complainant asked about the same from Sukhwinderjeet Kaur (petitioner no. 1), she clearly denied and said that the complainant had got confused. At this the complainant came to her son and again, the aforesaid Sukhwinderjeet Kaur (petitioner no. 1) started trapping them falsely by coming to them. But the complainant party refused her. When the complainant party asked for their sale deed documents from petitioner no. 1, then she started demanding Rs.1,25,000/- from her and escaped from the spot with their sale deed."

4.

The petitioners' counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions including surrender of fire arms, if any. In case, they repeat the offence or commit any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than 07 years, they would have no objection, if State files an application for cancellation of their bail. He further contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their family. He further submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. 5.

The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 6.

It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as

-3follows:

"xxx xxx xxx xxx The role of the petitioners: That the petitioner no. 1 obtained 6 cheques and original sale deed of the said plot from the complainant on the pretext of preparing loan agreement but she tried to scribe agreement to sell of the plot of complainant. But when the complainant came to know about the same, she flew away from the spot alongwith her cheques and original sale deed, Thereafter, petitioner no. 1 in connivance with co-accused Rajwinder Kaur and witnesses Karan (petitioner no. 2) and Parkash Singh (numberdar) got executed sale deed of the aforementioned plot in favour of Sukhwinderjeet Kaur (petitioner no. 1) by impersonating Rajwinder Kaur as Rani Kaur (complainant). REASONING:

4.

Rajwinder Kaur executed sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 is witness to that sale deed. The said Rajwinder Kaur already cancelled that sale deed. Given the nature of allegations and role attributed to petitioners and the fact that co-accused already granted benefit of anticipatory bail, petitioners are entitled to bail. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. 5.

Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioners makes a case for bail. 6.

Given above, provided the petitioners are not required in any other case, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

7.

While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioners shall mention the following personal identification details:

1.

AADHAR number 2.

Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

3.

Mobile number (If available) 4.

E-Mail id (If available) 8.

This order is subject to the petitioners' complying with the following terms.

-49.

The petitioners are directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioners shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioners shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

10.

In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioners notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

11.

This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioners indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 12.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 13.

A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioners can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

14.

Petition is allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

22.07.2025 (ANOOP CHITKARA) renubala JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No