SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sher Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 December, 2017

209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M- 11963 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : December 08, 2017

Sher Singh …..Petitioner

Versus

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

Sahib.

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

allowed.

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

trial.

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.

(Lisa Gill)
December 08, 2017 Judge
rts

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
15-12-2017 23:46:13 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh