Anuj Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 63192 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.12.2024 Anuj Singh and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE Present :

Mr. Kashav Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. HS Deol, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. J.S.Thakur, Advocate (through v.c.) for the complainant.

**** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) The petitioners have filed this petition for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.234 dated 20.09.2024 under Sections 318, 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita-2023 and 66(D) of the Information and Technology Act, registered with Police Station Navi Baradari, District Police Commissionerate , Jalandhar, Punjab.

2.

Petitioners No.1 and 2, who are the son and the mother, are in custody since 22.09.2024. Charge sheet in the matter has been filed before the trial Court on 19.10.2024. The petitioners are alleged with the offences of theft and cheating where the petitioner No.1, who was a domestic helper, taking the benefit of the old age of the complainant being 92 years, caused breach of trust and took out more than six lacs from her account and also indulged in theft of stolen gold jewellery at night time. RAVINDER KUMAR 2024.12.19 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM M No. 63192-2024 [2] 3.

In the given facts and circumstances, though the Court is inclined to grant bail to petitioner No.2-Sushila Singh being a woman, aged about 40 years, but declines bail to petitioner No.1-Anuj Singh, who can revisit this Court after examination of the main prosecution witnesses in the trial.

4.

Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed so far as it relates to petitioner No.1-Anuj Singh. However, this Court allows the petition qua petitioner No.2 and extends the benefit of regular bail to petitioner No.2Sushila Singh subject to her furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.50000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate (one of the sureties should be local). 5.

It is made clear that the observations made herein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 6.

This order shall also remain subject to the following condition:- i) The petitioner No.2 shall plant 10 saplings of indigenous plants at a public place and submit proof in that regard by way of photographs before the concerned trial Court within a period of 15 days and if there is no such intimation submitted or intimation is found to be incorrect, then the State can move an application for cancellation of his bail.

7.

Petition qua petitioner No.1 stands dismissed and petition qua petitioner No.2 stands allowed.

Disposed of.

(SHEEL NAGU) 19.12.2024 CHIEF JUSTICE ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√ RAVINDER KUMAR 2024.12.19 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document