Kulwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab


 


 

  
   




!
"#$%$ &'

(
)*+,-



  

   '
 ./
01
0 


0
    



     



!

 """



0
-

2/3'   

 

  $%& '

 ( )  *

 *



&+&, -    .')

/0 *

  ( 

 3 ) 4

 



  25.06.2024 City Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, 1860 (Section 120-B of IPC added later on) &

    

4

  

 

 ! #  

# * 1 



 

(

  



  7+

 

    *    ( 

 

  





  



      *    (          

* (   5       

  



     

  *  



 

  

  

*

   



  9(   

 :

     ;+



       



< 

   

  



= !     

 6++36&7   6> &+

*   .?  ? # / 

= !    9(

     $;

 

 (   ( 



(  2      

3 

,+

 *   

    

8  

  

 

  

  3  

  @   



 A

    +66+&+&$

, 2    

(   



5  12       

*

(     

( )  



 (   (   

  

5    



 *  8  *

  

   5 (   5    9      

(   ( 3    ,+   



 5 

 (  %  ?     

    .

4.

Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that the complainant had recorded supplementary statement before the Investigating Officer giving details of the amount received by way of cheating by the petitioner and the co-accused. It was revealed during investigation that the petitioner connived with the coaccused in cheating the complainant. The allegations against him are serious.

  His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough 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 complainant had been purchasing air tickets for his customers from the co-accused Harpreet Singh who is son of the present petitioner and after issuance of tickets to the customers of the complainant, the co-accused Harpreet Singh in conspiracy with the coaccused Amit had got cancelled some of those air tickets and took refund of the amount of those tickets which was misappropriated by him and some fake tickets were also issued. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and he was named by the complainant in his supplementary statement. There is no specific allegation that there was any dishonest inducement on the part of the present petitioner to the complainant to part with money. The allegations of forgery are also not prima facie made out against the present petitioner. An amount of Rs.

1,30,000/- is shown to have been deposited in the joint bank account of the petitioner and his son. It is revealed from the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 24.09.2024 that the petitioner had been directed to join the investigation. There is nothing on record to show that he did not join the same or did not co-operate with the same. It is a debatable question as to whether the subject offences have been made out as against the present petitioner.

 of this Court, it is a fit case for extending benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to surrender before the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer within a period of ten days from today and subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the investigating/arresting officer. It is further ordered that if he fails to join the investigation within a stipulated period, this petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:- (0          2 

  8 

  9  -0

    (   (

* (   

    (    9    

 

   @  (   <   -0

 

(       > 2  (  

   @           

 (

            8.

 

 





 

 (

    











4

0
5




(
)*+,-