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 :::
