Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Punjab
2021 Latest Caselaw 1801 P&H

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



                                              CRM-M-19315-2021 (O&M)
                                              Date of Decision:- 24.5.2021



Gurmeet Singh                                                   .... Petitioner


                                  Versus


State of Punjab                                                 ... Respondent



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL




Present:-   Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab,
            assistedby ASI Balbir Singh.


            (Proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

            *****

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of a case

registered vide FIR No.123, dated 16.11.2017, Police Station Badhni

Kalan, District Moga, under Sections 376, 406, 420 IPC (Sections

25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act added later on).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution version are

that the complainant (name not being mentioned to conceal her

identity and referred to as 'the prosecutrix') daughter of Chand Singh,

1 of 5

-2- CRM-M-19315-2021 (O&M)

resident of Daudhar Sakri submitted a written complaint addressed to

SHO, Police Station Badhni Kalan, in which she stated that in the

year 2016, while she was doing work of marketing in a company at

Mohali then she met Varinder Singh @ Velly, accused in January,

who represented to her that he was working as an immigration agent

and he would send her to Canada for Rs.15 lakhs; that Varinder Singh

@ Velly visited her house and had a talk with her parents for sending

her abroad stating that he would take all the money after grant of

visa; that the bargain was struck at Rs.13,50,000/-; that the accused

took original passport from the complainant; that on 10.4.2017,

Varinder Singh @ Velly came to the house of the prosecutrix stating

that she had been granted visa for going to Canada and since no other

family member of the prosecutrix was present, the petitioner had

sexual intercourse with her without her consent by giving allurement

to the complainant with a visa for Canada further threatening her that

in case she disclosed the incident to her family, then things would be

quite bad and he would not return her passport. According to the

prosecutrix, when her family members returned home in the evening,

the accused asked them to give Rs.5,00,000/-; that the amount was

given to him; that on 14.4.2017 Varinder Singh @ Velly sent a

message to the complainant on Whatsapp that she was to fly to

Canada on 17.4.2017 at 2:30 a.m. and her ticket had been booked;

that on 16.4.2017, the complainant along with Varinder Singh @

Velly, his wife, his friend, parents of complainant and uncle went to

Delhi Airport where Varinder Singh @ Velly told the complainant

2 of 5

-3- CRM-M-19315-2021 (O&M)

that her flight had got late and she would have to go through

Chennai; that thereafter Varinder Singh @ Velly along with his friend

on the pretext of Chennai brought her to Mohali through local flight,

kept her in a flat, took her mobile phone, made a call to her parents to

arrange remaining money of Rs.8,50,000/- and on 3.5.2017 the

petitioner again had sexual intercourse with the complainant, when

she was alone in her parental house; that then he sent her outside the

village in a car along with his friend while he himself remained at the

house; that he received Rs.8,50,000/- from the parents of

complainant; that a sum of Rs.4,44,000/- was deposited in the

account of complainant on various dates; that Varinder Singh @ Velly

withdrew that money through ATM card; that the accused allured

brother of complainant, who was in Dubai to send him to Canada;

that he had taken a sum of 31,14,000/- from the complainant and her

brother but he neither arranged their immigration to Canada nor

returned the money.

3. It is further the case of prosecution that the prosecutrix suffered a

supplementary statement on 5.12.2017 (Annexure P-2) wherein she

named four more accused as Lucky, Sarpreet Singh, Prince and

Channi and stated that they were friends of Varinder and on his

asking had also raped her. To the similar effect is the statement of the

prosecutrix recorded in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C.

4. It may here be mentioned that while the main accused named in the

FIR namely Varinder Singh was found guilty and convicted by the

trial Court vide its judgment dated 6.3.2020, a supplementary challan

3 of 5

-4- CRM-M-19315-2021 (O&M)

was filed against the co-accused including the petitioner on

29.9.2020.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely

been implicated in the instant case and that a perusal of the FIR

would clearly show that the allegations pertaining to the rape and

pertaining to depriving the complainant/victim of an amount of

Rs.31.14 lakhs have been levelled only against the main accused

namely Varinder Singh.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in fact

when the prosecutrix stepped into the witness box during the course

of trial, she has given a clean-chit to the petitioner as would be

evident from her statement dated 8.3.2021 (Annexure P-4).

7. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that in

view of the serious nature of allegations, no case for grant of bail is

made out. Learned State counsel has however, informed that the

petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 11 months and

that he is not wanted in any other case.

8. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

9. It is not in dispute that no allegation of any sort were raised against

the petitioner in the FIR and it is only in the supplementary statement

of the victim that he came to be named. In any case, after the

supplementary challan was filed, the victim has already been

examined by the trial Court and she has not stated a word against the

petitioner. The petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 11

months. In these circumstances, particularly when the victim has not

4 of 5

-5- CRM-M-19315-2021 (O&M)

supported the case of the prosecution, further detention of the

petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is

accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to

his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial

Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

24.5.2021                                      (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
Mohan                                                  JUDGE


             Whether speaking /reasoned        Yes / No

             Whether Reportable                Yes / No




                                    5 of 5