Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pooja Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 8 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
211
Date of decision : 08.12.2022
(i) CRM-M-51715-2022
Pooja Sharma .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
(ii) CRM-M-49781-2022
Deepti Sharma @ Makhni .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Present: - Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, Asstt. A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners have filed the present petitions under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of
anticipatory bail in case FIR No.131 dated 24.09.2022 registered under
Sections 417, 420, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at
Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot.
The above-said FIR was registered on the complaint made
by complainant-Parkasho Devi alleging that her husband was serving in
Army and he died in the year 2003. She made Harnam Dass as her
1 of 4
CRM-M-49781-2022
religious brother. On the death of her husband, she provided all
documents to Harnam Dass for the purpose of providing family
pension. The family pension of her husband was fixed in the year 2014.
But Harnam Dass did not give her any information regarding family
pension and used to withdraw the amount of her family pension through
ATM from her bank account without disclosing her about the same and
every year in the month of November, he took her to State Bank of
India, Branch Sujanpur and by fraudulently obtained her signatures on
the forms and renewed her family pension. On 29.08.2022 when she
want to make her PAN Card, then she came to know that she has
already have a PAN Card and her family pension is fixed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the
petitioners have no involvement in the present case and they have been
falsely implicated by the complainant on the asking of her son.
Petitioner-Pooja Sharma is a daughter and petitioner-Deepti Sharma @
Makhni is a grand-daughter of Harnam Dass. The petitioners are
neighbour of the complainant and many a times the complainant used to
ask the family members of Harnam Dass to withdraw the amount from
her ATM Card. Even the complainant had filed civil suit for declaration
to the effect that she is legally wedded wife of the late Chanan Singh
and mandatory injunction directing the department to release the
pension. There is no specific allegations against the petitioners with
respect of cheating. Nothing has to be recovered from the petitioners
and their custodial interrogation are not required in the case. The
petitioners are also ready and willing to join investigation.
2 of 4
CRM-M-49781-2022
Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for
the complainant opposed the present petitions on the ground that the
petitioners hatched a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Harnam Dass
and cheated the complainant by withdrawing the amount from her
account. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners are required for
thorough investigation of the case and for recovery of amount
withdrawn by them from the account of the complainant.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the paper-book.
As per reply filed by the State in CRM-M-49781-2022, co-
accused Harnam Dass with the motive to cheat the complainant, by
hatching conspiracy with the family members (including the
petitioners), obtained documents from the complainant on the pretext of
providing her family pension, opened her bank account bearing
No.34999630104 at State Bank of India, Sujanpur Branch, Pathankot,
got linked Vimla Devi's (wife of Harnam Dass) mobile No.8727095144
with the bank account of complainant, withdrew money of the
complainant without intimating her and purchased goods from CSD
canteen by using the ATM card of the complainant. In the CCTV
footage of the Bank, petitioner-Deepti Sharma @ Makhni is seen
withdrawing money on 05.06.2022, 06.06.2022, 03.07.2022 and
04.07.2022, 30.07.2022 and after withdrawing the money, she handed
over the same to her mother petitioner-Pooja Sharma.
The allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature.
The recovery of hefty amount is yet to be effected. Moreover, the
3 of 4
CRM-M-49781-2022
investigation is still going on, and therefore, their custodial
interrogation are necessary for finding out the modus operandi of
commission of the offence.
It is settled proposition of law that power exercisable under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it
is to be exercised in exceptional cases. This view of mine finds support
from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171.
Keeping in view the above facts as well as nature of the
offences, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory
bail. Hence, the present petitions are hereby dismissed.
08.12.2022 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
