Chirag Soni v. State Of Punjab
!"
# #$!% &"'
( ) *+ , !"
# $%&' !""$!%() ***** -, 1.
Petitioner Chirag Soni has filed petition under Section 482 read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.153 dated 03.09.2024, under Sections 74, 318(4), 351 of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana Rural (Annexure P-4). 2.
As per facts of the case, complainant gave her statement that she got married with Amrinder Singh in the year, 2008. She is having two children. She was running a beauty parlour and needed money to expand the business. She went to the office of SBI, Sidhwan Bet for raising loan where she came in contact with Chirag Soni. They started talking to each other. She gained confidence on him and was trapped by him. She was taken to a
restaurant where she was physically exploited and he clicked her objectionable photographs. He compelled her to meet him otherwise, her photographs will be put on social media. He suggested to expand her business in Dubai. She gave her FDR worth Rs.1,76,000/- to him. He raised demand for more money. Out of which she deposited Rs.49,500/- in the account of Chirag Soni. Even thereafter, she withdrew money. She along with Chirag Soni went to Dubai but he did not arrange any business of parlour. She was physically exploited. When, she demanded her documents and passport then he extended threats to kill her. She was sent back to India on 28.08.2024. Finally, she lodged the present FIR. 3.
Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner was granted interim bail by Coordinate Bench vide order dated 19.09.2024. He has joined the investigation and handed over his mobile phone to the police. He is still ready to cooperate with the investigating agency. Therefore, his interim bail already granted in his favour may be confirmed. 4.
Learned counsel representing State did not file any reply. However, it is confirmed that mobile phone of petitioner has been recovered and he is not required for any other purpose. 5.
I have considered the aforesaid factual position and have gone through the record. Petitioner has already joined the investigation. As per learned counsel representing State, petitioner is not required for any other purpose. Therefore, no purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. He is still ready to abide by the terms of bail order. Therefore, interim bail already granted in favour of petitioner vide order dated 19.09.2024
stands confirmed subject to the conditions detailed under Section 482(2) BNSS. 6.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. 7.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.
. / + ,-. /.0 + )1 /.0