SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sandeep Singh Bedi vs State Of Punjab on 17 January, 2019

CRM-M No.41070 of 2018 1


CRM-M No.41070 of 2018
Decided on: 17.01.2019

Sandeep Singh Bedi
State of Punjab


Present : Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. M.S. Nagra, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant.


Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in

short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in FIR No.216 dated 25.07.2017, for offence punishable

under Sections 307, 326, 324, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian

Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station ‘E’ Division,

Amritsar, District Amritsar.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the

allegations in the FIR, which was got registered by the wife of the

petitioner Rashmi Bedi, that she was married with the petitioner and out

of this wedlock, 02 sons are born. It is further stated in the FIR that the

petitioner/husband used to maltreat the complainant and on that

account, she returned back to her parental home but was again brought

back by the petitioner. In the year 2014, a dispute arose as the petitioner

1 of 6
21-01-2019 03:26:55 :::
CRM-M No.41070 of 2018 2

has allegedly prepared certain fake documents for the purpose of

obtaining loan and on that account, she got an FIR No.93 of 2014 under

Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station

Civil Lines, Amritsar. Thereafter, the petitioner again committed a fraud

with the complainant and another FIR No.91 dated 30.05.2016 was

registered against the petitioner under Section 406 IPC at Police Station

Sadar Amritsar. It is further alleged in the FIR that on account of

registration of the FIR, the petitioner is threatening and pressurizing her

to withdraw the cases. On 23.07.2017 at about 10.15 p.m., when she

was present in her house, she heard a noise of breaking of the glass and

she came out on the road and she found that the petitioner and his

brother (co-accused – Dilpreet Bedi) along with 03 other unknown

persons were causing damage to her car with bricks and at that time, the

petitioner was carrying a datar in his hand. When she tried to stop them,

the petitioner attacked her and caused an injury on the left front side of

head and blood started oozing out. Thereafter, the petitioner caught

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

her and when she raised noise, her mother and other people gathered

there and on seeing them, the accused ran away from the spot.

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

2 of 6
21-01-2019 03:26:55 :::
CRM-M No.41070 of 2018 3

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


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 submitted that the

petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.04.2018 and initially, the

offence under Section 307 IPC was deleted but again, on the basis of

the medical report, it was added and primarily, there is a matrimonial

dispute between the petitioner and the complainant. It is further stated

that the statement of the complainant – Rashmi Bedi, has already been

recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge on 10.01.2019 and only part

of her cross-examination remains to be recorded.

Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the co-

accused of the petitioner namely Dilpreet Bedi, who is also the real

brother of the petitioner, has already been granted the concession of

regular bail vide order dated 28.08.2018 passed in CRM-M No.28435

of 2018. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the dispute

arose between the parties, on account of a partnership between the

petitioner and one Gursajan Bedi, the first cousin of the petitioner and

3 of 6
21-01-2019 03:26:55 :::
CRM-M No.41070 of 2018 4

he is the person responsible for spoiling the matrimonial life of the

petitioner and the complainant. It is also submitted that there is a delay

of 02 days in registration of the FIR.

The operative part of the order granting regular bail to the

co-accused of the petitioner namely Dilpreet Bedi, brother of the

petitioner, reads as under:-

“….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 these
petitions, the present petitioner is not even arrayed as one

4 of 6
21-01-2019 03:26:55 :::
CRM-M No.41070 of 2018 5

of the respondents….”

In reply, counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

Ravinder Kumar, has not disputed that the statement of the complainant

has been recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge (a photocopy of the

same is taken on record as Mark Y).

Counsel appearing for the complainant has, however,

opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner, apart from

the aforesaid 02 FIRs, is involved in 04 more FIRs and if the petitioner

is released on bail, there will be a threat to the life and liberty of the

complainant. It is further argued that even the aforesaid Gursajan Bedi

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

and liberty, which was later on disposed of by this Court.

After hearing counsel for the parties finding that, in fact, it

was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the complainant,

which has aggravated to an extent where it seem that the parties cannot

reconcile the matter. Therefore, without commenting anything on merits

of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since

23.04.2018; the statement of the complainant/injured has already been

recorded by the trial Court and also in view of the fact the petitioner

and the complainant are husband and wife and they have 02 minor

children and in the litigation between them, the allegations raised by the

petitioner are that one Gursajan Bedi, the first cousin of the petitioner,

is the bone of contention and during the custody of the petitioner, even

he has to transfer certain property in his name on account of the

business dealings, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is

directed to be released on regular bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds

5 of 6
21-01-2019 03:26:55 :::
CRM-M No.41070 of 2018 6

to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to 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 the 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 Rs.1,00,000/- 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.

Disposed of accordingly.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

6 of 6
21-01-2019 03:26:55 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2022 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