Malkit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1047984
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-01-2013
AppellantMalkit Kaur
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
crl.m.not m-10234 of 2013(o&m) -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. crl.m.not m-10234 of 2013(o&m) date of decision: april 1, 2013 malkit kaur .....petitioner v. state of punjab .....respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice ram chand gupta present: mr.surinder sharma, advocate for the petitioner....ram chand gupta, j.(oral) the present petition filed under section 438 cr.p.c.is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case fir no.23, dated 9.2.2013, under sections 406, 420, 120-b ipc, registered at police station bhogpur, jalandhar. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned additional sessions judge, jalandhar, vide which application filed on behalf of the petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. brief allegations are that petitioner alongwith co-accused in connivance with each other had defrauded lakhwinder singh, gurjindersingh, tarlochan singh, sumit sainit, jasbir singh and many other persons by taking huge amount from them on the plea that they would be given jobs in rashtriya sarvshiksha abhiyan. forged appointment letters were also issued. there are specific allegations that an advertisement was given in the newspaper and on that basis complainants and some other persons had gone on the said address given in the advertisement where petitioner alongwith co-accused were found present and they assured all those persons that permanent jobs would be provided to them on payment of `4 lacs cash. thereafter they had gone to the house of surinder singh and money was paid. they had also taken them in office which was opened in crl.m.not m-10234 of 2013(o&m) -2- kothi no.535, near guru nanak dev university camp ladhowali, jalandhar, and they were told that they were to work there and they should also tell other villagers about rashtriya sarvshiksha abhiyan scheme and that a computer centre would also be opened in the village. there are also allegations that when they did not receive any pay, they approached surinder singh, who called sons of present petitioner-accused, who came alongwith unidentified persons, abused them and raised threat to kill them. it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that allegations against petitioner-accused are only vague in nature and that there are no specific allegations of taking money by petitioner- accused. it is also contended that main accused, namely, sikandar singh has already been arrested. however, there are serious allegations against petitioner- accused and the co-accused. case is at the initial stage of investigation. name of petitioner has been mentioned in the fir. petitioner and co.accused have defrauded so many innocent persons on the inducement to provide jobs to them in rashtriya sarvshiksha abhiyan. hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary. it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner-accused. in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-malkit kaur for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 1.4.2013 (ram chand gupta) meenu judge
Judgment:

Crl.M.not M-10234 of 2013(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.M.not M-10234 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: April 1, 2013 Malkit Kaur .....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner....RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.23, dated 9.2.2013, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Bhogpur, Jalandhar.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which application filed on behalf of the petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Brief allegations are that petitioner alongwith co-accused in connivance with each other had defrauded Lakhwinder Singh, Gurjindersingh, Tarlochan Singh, Sumit Sainit, Jasbir Singh and many other persons by taking huge amount from them on the plea that they would be given jobs in Rashtriya Sarvshiksha Abhiyan.

Forged appointment letters were also issued.

There are specific allegations that an advertisement was given in the newspaper and on that basis complainants and some other persons had gone on the said address given in the advertisement where petitioner alongwith co-accused were found present and they assured all those persons that permanent jobs would be provided to them on payment of `4 lacs cash.

Thereafter they had gone to the house of Surinder Singh and money was paid.

They had also taken them in office which was opened in Crl.M.not M-10234 of 2013(O&M) -2- Kothi No.535, Near Guru Nanak Dev University Camp Ladhowali, Jalandhar, and they were told that they were to work there and they should also tell other villagers about Rashtriya Sarvshiksha Abhiyan scheme and that a computer centre would also be opened in the village.

There are also allegations that when they did not receive any pay, they approached Surinder Singh, who called sons of present petitioner-accused, who came alongwith unidentified persons, abused them and raised threat to kill them.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that allegations against petitioner-accused are only vague in nature and that there are no specific allegations of taking money by petitioner- accused.

It is also contended that main accused, namely, Sikandar Singh has already been arrested.

However, there are serious allegations against petitioner- accused and the co-accused.

Case is at the initial stage of investigation.

Name of petitioner has been mentioned in the FIR.

Petitioner and Co.accused have defrauded so many innocent persons on the inducement to provide jobs to them in Rashtriya Sarvshiksha Abhiyan.

Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary.

It is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner-accused.

In view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Malkit Kaur for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

1.4.2013 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge