Gagandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab
!" #$%$ &' ( )*+*% ,
' -./0/ /
!
"""
/,1.2' $ %&' ( )* + +
,(* -+
) $ ./! $01 ./* 2
$ 15.07.2024 Mukeria, Hoshiarpur 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional Act (Regulation) Act, '
( $ $
! ./0 0 !$ $) ($ $$ 0 $
!)
!+ $!! !
2 . ()!+ $$! +! '
44451 !)0$$
!
! 0$
0+ . / ! '4'6 $ $$) ! !$
+
!!!) #
+ 7 + +$ !8 ! 4'
'4'6 !
))
0$ $) +#+)!! 7! ! & 44451 % 44451 :4 '4'64'
:4 '4'6 $) 7 0)
;4'
:4 '4'6
!
!
! $ <0 '
44451 / ) $$$ 0
1
0##8 $$0 ! )0$
. = !
0
) !> ?
$$$ 1 + ! '4 44451!
!0 $$! !!) )
+ )+ !
%
; $) !$ ./
/ 0 ! 0)
! $
) $ $
7
0
0 !
'9 4@ '4'%
$) )
$ $$) !$
# $) ! $ ./ *!
) !$ * $
* !) +$ 0 * )$$ 0$ $$
8 $ = * ) ) !
7 ) /
$$0 4.
Per contra, learned State counsel has resisted the contentions as raised by petitioner's counsel in terms of status report. It is argued that on receipt of complaint, inquiry was conducted in the matter and it was revealed that the petitioner was an associate with the main accused Jugraj who is a travel agent, in commission of subject offence. It is submitted that the petitioner had been actively associated with the co-accused and accompanied them when the complainant along with his family members and Sarpanch etc. had gone to meet the main accused Jugraj Singh to know about the whereabouts of his son who had gone missing after reaching. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for proper investigation of the matter by the police. Therefore, it is urged that the
petition does not deserve to be allowed.
5.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.
6.
As per the allegations, the co-accused Jugraj Singh had induced the complainant to part with a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- on the pretext of sending his son Amrish Dutt to France via Turkey and Serbia on work visa and the son of the complainant had gone missing after having been reached at Serbia and was not in his contact. The allegations as levelled against the petitioner are that he accompanied the co-accused Jugraj when the complainant had come to ask him(Jugraj) about the whereabouts of his son. There is neither any specific allegation in the FIR nor it has been revealed from the reply filed by the respondent-State that the petitioner in any manner had made any inducement to the complainant to part with any amount of money or had assured him to send his son abroad or any amount of money had been entrusted to him by the complainant. 7.
Further, from the allegations as levelled, it has also not been revealed that the petitioner had hatched any conspiracy with the co-accused. On the basis of the simple allegation, that the petitioner accompanied Jugraj Singh at the time when the complainant had come to meet the former, does not mean that he was involved in commission of offences as alleged against the accused-Jugraj. These allegations are debatable which can be decided on the basis of evidence to be produced during the trial. However, apparently, neither custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, keeping in view
3 the allegations as levelled against him, nor any recovery is to be effected from him. As such, in my considered opinion, it is fit case for extending benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail, subject to
$ $80
)!
0
$$$ $) $ $8
the following conditions:- $$ 0 $$ 5 =
$$ $) $)!+) !
!
) = 0
!5 ! $ 8) $ ;
$$ !!
) $ 0
$ $
&
/ $ ) $8 $$!0 $ $$ ) 0 $0
/ $ ! $$ > !
4 /5
( )*+*% ,