Salony @ Saloni v. State Of Punjab

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 6.3.2020 Salony @ Saloni ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rashmi Attri, AAG, Punjab, assisted by ASI Balwinder Kumar.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.156, dated 18.7.2019, Police Station Rama Mandi, Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar, under Sections 386, 342, 332, 506, 120-B IPC.

2.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Sushil Kumar Verma, Manager in Punjab & Sind Bank, Dashmesh Nagar, Dhilwan Road, Jalandhar wherein it has been alleged that one girl namely Priya approached him while stating that she was in touch with a loan officer Rupinder Kaur who had since been transferred. The said girl represented that she had furnished all the details pertaining to the loan case to said Rupinder Kaur who was supposed to visit her house

- 2 - for verification of the property. Since Rupinder Kaur stood transferred, therefore, the complainant visited the premises on 15.7.2019 where one lady took her to a room and asked her to sit there and she went inside to prepare tea. The said lady then started showing the house and while she took her to bedroom, three ladies and three men suddenly entered the room and started abusing him and started raising allegations against him to the effect that he had entered the bedroom with a girl with bad intentions. One of the said persons disclosed his name as Ashwani Kumar, Secretary of Congress Party. Another of accomplice who also was being referred to as Ashwani claimed himself to be a Secretary of BJP Party and who started preparing video. It is alleged that the said persons gave beatings to him.

The ladies by the names Dimple, Saloni and Sapna also threatened him. The lady who had taken the complainant to her house disclosed her name as Ganga and started pressurizing him to effect a compromise which was ultimately effected for an amount of `7.10 lakhs. It is alleged that the said lady Ganga along with her husband Ashwani came to the bank and took an amount of `7.10 lakhs from him.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she has falsely been implicated in the present case and that even as per the allegations levelled in the FIR it is Ganga and her husband Ashwani who had taken an amount of `7.10 lakhs from the complainant. It has further been submitted that out of the 9 accused, 7 have already

- 3 - been granted the benefit of bail and that challan already stands presented.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the name of the petitioner specifically figures in the FIR, no case for grant of bail is made out. It has however not been disputed that 7 identically situated co-accused have already been released on bail. Learned State counsel has also informed that pursuant to interim directions, the petitioner has since joined investigation. 5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to maintain parity and while also bearing in mind that the petitioner has already joined investigation, her custodial interrogation is not warranted. The petition, as such, is accepted and interim directions issued vide order dated 19.8.2019 are made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear and join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

March 6, 2020 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No