Pooja Rani v. State Of Haryana
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 19, 2024 Pooja Rani ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:
Mr.Anil Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ramesh Kumar Ambavata, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.Kushagra Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant.
........
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) 1.
This is the second petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.64, dated 07.03.2024, under Section 120-B, 384 and 420 (Section 420 IPC added later on). registered at Police Station Sadar Pehowa, Kurukshetra, Haryana. 2.
Succinctly the facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged with the police by Amrik Singh alleging therein that his daughter-in-law had sold her ancestral land which was in her name and from that money his daughter-in-law purchased property in Pehowa. His daughter-in-law was left with balance amount of Rs.59/60 lakhs. This amount was deposited by her in her joint account with her husband Saravjit Singh (son of the complainant) in Punjab National Bank, Pehowa. On 17.06.2023, at about
-211.30 p.m.four persons came to his house and he was told that they were CBI officials. They told that they have reliable information that they had sold government land in Punjab and thus has duped the Government with lakhs of rupees. Though he tried to convince them that they have legally sold their own property and have not committed any cheating, however, by pressurizing the complainant, they duped him with an amount of Rs.52.00 lakhs. He has submitted that the money was extorted from him by threatening. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the accused persons.
3.
On the basis of the complaint, investigation commenced and during investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, she was named as an accused. She was arrested on 07.03.2024. She had approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra praying for grant of bail, however, the same was declined by the Court, after hearing both the sides, vide order dated 19.07.2024. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-38447-2024, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.10.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, praying for grant of bail, however, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the said application was again dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2024. Hence, aggrieved, the petitioner is now again before this Court praying for grant of regular bail by filing the present petition.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that
-3petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor there is any allegation made against her. He has submitted that as per the allegations made in the FIR, all the RTGS, UPI etc. have been made in favour of co-accused Pinder Sodhi and the cash also was received by co-accused Pinder Sodhi, who is already behind bars. He submits that no transaction has been made in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that no recovery whatsoever stands affected from the petitioner. He thus submits that investigation already stands completed and thus, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. 5.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that complicity of the petitioner has been duly established during investigation. He has submitted that the complainant was duped with heavy amount of Rs.52.00 lakhs by all the accused in a well hatched conspiracy. It is submitted that the accused had projected themselves as CBI officers and have extracted the hard earned money from the complainant. He submits that the petitioner is the part of the conspiracy and she is one of the beneficiary of the amount extorted from the complainant. He submits that not only the petitioner, her husband is also the co-accused, who is yet to be arrested in the present case. He further submits that though the investigation is complete, charges are framed, however, out of the 11 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined so far and granting bail to the petitioner would prejudice the trial. He, thus, contends that there being no merit in the petition, the same deserves to be dismissed.
6.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant also opposes the prayer made by the petitioner.
-47.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that FIR in the present case was lodged by Amrik Singh on the specific allegations that the accused in conspiracy with each other projected themselves as CBI officials and thus extracted an amount of Rs.52.00 lakhs from him. The complainant also alleged that it was found that the accused were arrested by Vigilance Bureau Ludhiana in FIR No.20, dated 28.08.2023. The petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2024 and she had earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-38447, ,however, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 03.10.2024. As submitted by learned State counsel out of 11 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till date. Husband of the petitioner, who is the co-accused, is also yet to be arrested. Needless to say that trial is at the initial stage. This Court neither finds any change in circumstances nor find any merit in the petition and as such the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. 8.
However, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 19, 2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.
Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No 2.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No