SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dilpreet Bedi vs State Of Punjab on 28 August, 2018

Criminal Misc.M-No.28435 of 2018 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Sr.No.221

Criminal Misc.M-No.28435 of 2018
Reserved on:24.08.2018
Date of Pronouncement:28.08.2018

Dilpreet Bedi ….petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab …..respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present: Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner

Mr.Sidakmeet Sandhu, AAG Punjab

Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant

***

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. :

CRM No.29373 of 2018

Application is allowed as prayed for. Annexure A1 is

taken on record.

Criminal Misc.M-No.28435 of 2018

Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail in FIR

No. 216 dated 25.07.2017 under Sections 307/ 324/ 326/ 427/ 506/

148/149 IPC, registered at Police Station Division ‘E’, District Amritsar

City (Annexure P1).

1 of 9
04-09-2018 09:31:21 :::
Criminal Misc.M-No.28435 of 2018 2

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the

allegation in the FIR, got registered by Rashmi Bedi, wife of co-

accused Sandeep Bedi (who is the real brother of the present

petitioner), she was married with Sandeep Bedi and out of this marriage

two sons were born. It is further stated in FIR that since her husband

used to maltreat her, she returned back to her parental home, but she

was taken back by Sandeep Bedi. In the year 2014, Sandeep Bedi

prepared certain fake documents for the purpose of obtaining loan and

on that account FIR No.93/14 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,

120-B IPC was registered against him at Police Station Civil Lines,

Amritsar, but he did not mend his ways. Thereafter, Sandeep Bedi

again committed fraud with the complainant, who got FIR No.91 dated

30.05.2016, registered against him under Section 406 IPC, at Police

Station Sadar and since then he is threatening her and pressurizing her

to withdraw the cases. It is further stated in the FIR that on 23.07.2017,

at about 10.15 PM, she was present in her house, when she heard a

noise of breaking of the glass. When she came on the road, she saw

that her husband Sandeep and his brother i.e.the petitioner Dilpreet

along with three other unknown persons were damaging her car with

bricks. When she tried to stop them, Sandeep Bedi who was carrying a

‘datar’ in his hand attacked on her head which hit on the left front side

of her head and blood started oozing out. Thereafter, Sandeep Bedi

caught hold of her from hair and threw her on the ground and started

beating her. On which she raised noise and hearing her cries, her

2 of 9
04-09-2018 09:31:21 :::
Criminal Misc.M-No.28435 of 2018 3

mother came to her rescue and many people gathered there. On seeing

them, the accused ran away with their respective weapons.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the

opinion of the doctor, when the complainant had come to the

emergency, she was conscious and well oriented. Injury No.1 was

incised wound of 4.3 x 1 cm on left side of her forehead. Counsel for

the petitioner further submits that though on 29.07.2017, the

Department of Forensic Medicine Toxicology, Govt.Medical

College, Amritsar, had given an opinion that injury No.1 is grievous in

nature, however, based on CT-Scan report, the Board of Doctors

constituted by Civil Surgeon, Amritsar, on the request of complainant

Rashmi Bedi, found injury No.1 of the above said patient, grievous in

nature.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on

12.08.2017, the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, had

given another opinion to the SHO, Police Station ‘E’ Division,

Amritsar, regarding the MLR of complainant Rashmi Bedi that the

possibility of injury No.1 being caused by friendly hand cannot be

ruled out and therefore, in view of the conflicting opinions, it cannot be

said, at this stage, that injury sustained by complainant was grievous in

nature.

Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there is

no direct allegation against the petitioner except that he is the brother

3 of 9
04-09-2018 09:31:21 :::
Criminal Misc.M-No.28435 of 2018 4

of the estranged husband of the complainant namely Sandeep Bedi with

whom the complainant is having litigation. Counsel for the petitioner

has further submitted that initially the offence under Section 307 IPC

was deleted but again on the basis of medical report Section 307 IPC

has been added and therefore, the role of the police is suspicious as on

account of the matrimonial dispute pending between the complainant

Rashmi Bedi and her husband Sandeep Bedi, the police is trying to help

the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required in

further investigation. The petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2017 and

he is not involved in any other case except a jail offence.

In reply, learned State counsel has submitted that the

allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his brother

Sandeep Bedi have intentionally caused injuries to the complainant and

the petitioner has taken active part in the occurrence. Learned State

counsel has submitted that the police has initially registered the FIR

under Section 307 IPC based on the medical opinion and thereafter, it

was deleted. However, on receiving the opinion of Board of Doctors,

Section 307 IPC is again added and the police is conducting a fair and

impartial investigation.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from the

investigating officer has also informed that the petitioner is not

involved in any other case except in a case/jail offence for using a

4 of 9
04-09-2018 09:31:21 :::
Criminal Misc.M-No.28435 of 2018 5

mobile phone in jail.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has

strongly opposed the prayer for regular bail on the ground that the

complainant Rashmi Bedi has filed CRM-M No.28997 of 2017,

praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents to investigate the

FIR No.91 dated 30.05.2015 under Section 406 IPC, registered at

Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, as well as the present FIR,

expeditiously, and in a time bound manner. Learned counsel for the

complainant has further submitted that in the said petition, vide order

dated 09.11.2017, the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, was directed

to ensure that the life and liberty of Rashmi Bedi is fully protected and

she is not harassed either at the instance of Sandeep Bedi or the police

officials. It is further stated that the said petition is now pending for

24.09.2018.

Learned counsel for the complainant has further

submitted that one Gursajan Bedi has also filed a petition bearing

CRM-M No.33232 of 2018, praying for protection of his life and

liberty as well as of his family members and to take appropriate action

on a representation dated 20.04.2018 given to the police. It is stated

that Gursajan Bedi is receiving ransom calls from one Harry Chadha

and one FIR No.165 of 2016, under Sections 387,506 IPC was

registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. Counsel for the

complainant further submits that in the said petition, it is also stated

5 of 9
04-09-2018 09:31:21 :::
Criminal Misc.M-No.28435 of 2018 6

that said Harry Chadha is having a conspiracy with Sandeep Bedi,

husband of the complainant. Counsel for the complainant further

submits that in this petition also vide order dated 17.08.2018,

Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, is directed to look into the

grievance of Gursajan Bedi to protect his life and liberty and this

petition is also listed for 24.09.2018.

It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that in case

the petitioner is released on bail, he will create a threat to the life and

liberty of the complainant as the complainant is receiving threatening

calls from her estranged husband i.e.the co-accused Sandeep Bedi.

Counsel for the complainant has also submitted that the said Harry

Chadha is a wanted criminal and the police has also issued

proclamation in this regard.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that in the petition filed by complainant Rashmi Bedi i.e. CRM-M

No.28997 of 2017, there are no allegations against the present

petitioner and all the allegations are against Sandeep Bedi. It is also

submitted that the petition filed by Gursajan Bedi i.e. CRM-M

No.33232 of 2018, is also filed by the same counsel and therefore, both

the complainant and Gursajan Bedi are hand in glove with each other as

Gursajan Bedi is a relative of the petitioner with whom there was some

business dispute with the co-accused Sandeep Bedi and the said

petition filed by Gursajan Bedi is based on false averments just to settle

6 of 9
04-09-2018 09:31:21 :::
Criminal Misc.M-No.28435 of 2018 7

his personal score with Sandeep Bedi and there is no threat to his life

and liberty.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that

the matrimonial dispute between the complainant and co-accused

Sandeep Bedi, who is the real brother of the present petitioner, has

gone to an extreme extent. The case files of the aforesaid two petitions

filed by Rashmi Bedi and Gursajan Bedi, were summoned, as the

counsel for the complainant has heavily relied upon the averments

made therein. A perusal of CRM-M No.28997 of 2017 filed by Rashmi

Bedi shows that the allegations levelled by Rashmi Bedi are against her

husband Sandeep Bedi and the name of petitioner is not specifically

mentioned. Moreover, the prayer in the said petition is for expeditious

investigation of the case and FIR No.91 dated 30.05.2015, in which

only Sandeep Bedi is accused as well of the present FIR No.216 dated

25.07.2017 under Sections 307/ 324/ 326/ 427/ 506/ 148/149 IPC,

registered at Police Station Division ‘E’, District Amritsar City, in

which report the police has already submitted the report under Section

173 Cr.P.C as petitioner and Sandeep Bedi are arrested.

A perusal of the second petition i.e. CRM-M No.33232

of 2018 filed by Gursajan Bedi also show that he is levelling

allegations against one Harry Chadha, claiming him to be an

accomplice of Sandeep Bedi and again there are no direction

allegations against the present petitioner. Needless to say that in both

7 of 9
04-09-2018 09:31:21 :::
Criminal Misc.M-No.28435 of 2018 8

these petitions, the present petitioner is not even arrayed as one of the

respondents.

Considering the fact that the challan against the

petitioner has already been presented and petitioner is no more required

for any further investigation and he is in custody for more than four

months and there are no direct allegations of causing injury to

complainant, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, subject to

furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the

following conditions:

(i)The petitioner shall report to the SHO/Investigating

Officer once in every week.

(ii) The petitioner shall not visit the place of residence

or place of work of complainant Rashmi Bedi and in

case he is found extending any threat to her, it will

be open for the investigating officer to apply for

cancellation of bail.

(iii)The petitioner shall also furnish surety bond for

` One lakh of his close relative/mother, to the effect

that he/she will keep a watch on the activities of the

petitioner and shall be responsible if he is found

involved in misusing the concession of bail.

(iv)The Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, will ensure

the protection of life and liberty of the complainant

as already directed.

8 of 9
04-09-2018 09:31:21 :::
Criminal Misc.M-No.28435 of 2018 9

The petition stands disposed of. The observations made

in this petition with regard to the facts of CRM-M No.28997 of 2017

and CRM-M No.33232 of 2018 are only for the purpose of deciding

this bail application and will have no bearing on the merits of the said

cases.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE

28.08.2018
neenu

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No.
Whether reportable- Yes/No

9 of 9
04-09-2018 09:31:21 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation