SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sukhraj Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 September, 2019

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh

CRM-M-29352-2019 (OM)
Date of Decision:-30.9.2019

Sukhraj Singh … Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab … Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:- Mr. Vikas Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Rashmi Attri, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ,
assisted by ASI Sukhwinder Singh.

*****

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)

1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in

respect of a case registered vide FIR No.127 dated 20.6.2019 at Police

Station Phase-I, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, District Mohali under Sections 354,

Section379 and Section506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Shaina, wherein it has been alleged

that she is running a company by the name of ‘XOR Solution Company’ and

that Sukhraj Singh, who had earlier been working for the company, left the

company in April 2019 without informing her and joined another company

after stealing data from her company. It is further alleged that on 20.5.2019,

an amount of `5,600/- had been given to the petitioner and later on 24.5.2019

he came to the complainant’s company and misbehaved with her and

1 of 2
06-10-2019 07:25:29 :::
(2) CRM-M-29352-2019 (OM)

quarreled with her and stole an amount of `1,800/- from the drawer and also

threatened that he would ensure that the complainant’s company is shut

down.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has

falsely been implicated in the present case mainly on account of the fact that

he had left the complainant’s company and had joined some other company.

It has further been submitted that infact even perusal of the FIR does not

disclose any offence under Section 354 IPC.

4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that the

complainant in her supplementary statement recorded on the same day had

specifically stated that on 24.5.2019, when the petitioner had visited the

complainant’s company, he had also molested the complainant. It has,

however, been informed that the petitioner has since joined investigation.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and without

commenting anything on merits of the case, in my opinion, the present case is

not such, which would warrant custodial interrogation. The petition, as such,

is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated

12.7.2019 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the

petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and

cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the

conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

30.9.2019 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill )
pankaj Judge

Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable Yes / No

2 of 2
06-10-2019 07:25:29 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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