209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No. M- 11963 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : December 08, 2017
Sher Singh …..Petitioner
State of Punjab ….Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Ranjit Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Rathore, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, Advocate
for the complainant.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 94 dated 15.11.2016 under Sections 365, 376, 328,
120B IPC registered at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar
It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, in
this case, due to the reason that he suffered a statement in favour of one
Hakeem Daleep Singh on 29.07.2016 (Annexure P-3) against the
complainant. Hakeem Daleep Singh, co-accused in this case, had lodged a
complaint against the present complainant regarding theft of `26,000/- from
his house on 01.07.2016. The complainant was working as domestic help at
the residence of Hakeem Daleep Singh. The present FIR, it is submitted,
was registered after an unexplained delay of over one month in respect to an
incident alleged to have taken place on 15.10.2016. It is further argued that
1 of 3
15-12-2017 23:46:12 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 11963 of 2017 (OM) -2-
the complainant is a married lady with three children. It is not possible that
if she had gone missing on 15.10.2016, no report in the matter would have
been lodged by her husband. Moreover, the petitioner has joined
investigation. He is not involved in any other criminal case. The petitioner
undertakes to face the proceedings and not abuse the concession of
anticipatory bail, if confirmed. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State are
unable to deny the complaint earlier filed by the co-accused Hakeem Daleep
Singh neither is it denied that no report regarding the missing of
complainant was lodged by her husband, though learned counsel for the
complainant submits that another complaint under Section 354 IPC was
filed against co-accused Hakeem Daleep Singh earlier by the complainant.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Raj
Davender Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation
pursuant to order dated 07.04.2017. It is further verified that representation
Annexure P-3 was indeed submitted by the petitioner in favour of co-
accused Hakeem Daleep Singh. The petitioner is not reported to be involved
in any other criminal case.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the
petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the
witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted above but
without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just
2 of 3
15-12-2017 23:46:13 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 11963 of 2017 (OM) -3-
and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated 07.04.2017
is made absolute.
It is reiterated that none of the observations made herein above
are a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the
It is, however, clarified that the petitioner shall not try to
contact the complainant or any of her family members in any manner –
directly or indirectly. Any such infraction on the part of the petitioner shall
entail cancellation of his bail.
December 08, 2017 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
15-12-2017 23:46:13 :::