Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 July, 2022
CRM-M-17007-2022 1
211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-17007-2022
Date of Decision: 21.07.2022
Satnam Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Deepak Sibal
Present: Mr.Jitender Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms.Gunkirat Kaur, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
Deepak Sibal, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.44 dated 02.03.2022 registered under
Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District
Patiala.
Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that Malkeet Singh
used to come to the alleged victim's house in the absence of her brother
(complainant). When the complainant saw Malkeet Singh he fled the scene
by scaling over the wall. The complainant then went to Malkeet Singh's
house and met his father (the petitioner) who told him that his son would
continue to meet the complainant's sister. On the intervening night of 1/2
March 2022 the alleged victim was found missing from her house. On the
happening of such an event, the complainant lodged the FIR in question as
GOPAL KRISHAN
2022.07.22 15:10
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-M-17007-2022 2
he believed that Malkeet Singh, at the instance of his father (petitioner) and
his elder brother (Manjeet Singh) had enticed his sister away.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is a 57 years old man who has been falsely implicated in this case as the
complainant's sister has eloped with the petitioner's son; the petitioner has
no other criminal case pending against him; investigation in the case is
complete and therefore, the petitioner is in no position to influence the
same; co-accused Manjeet Singh who had earlier approached this Court
through CRM-M-15594-2022 -- Manjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab has been
granted ad interim anticipatory bail; in the status report filed by the State it
has been stated that photographs of Malkeet Singh and the alleged victim
are in the possession of the investigating officer which clearly show that the
alleged victim and Malkeet Singh have got married; once the alleged victim
has voluntarily got married to Malkeet Singh no offence under Section 363
and 366 IPC is made out and least of all against the petitioner; the petitioner
is not aware of the whereabouts of Malkeet Singh; there is no evidence with
the police to link the petitioner with the crime he is alleged to have
committed; the petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2022 and that the
petitioner's trial which is yet to begin will take a long time to conclude.
Learned State counsel opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner
on the ground that the petitioner has facilitated kidnapping of the
complainant's sister who is a minor.
The petitioner is Malkeet Singh's father. The State has stated in
its status report that the investigating officer is in possession of photographs
showing that Malkeet Singh and the alleged victim have got married. That
being so, it is not difficult to presume that the alleged victim had
GOPAL KRISHAN
2022.07.22 15:10
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-M-17007-2022 3
voluntarily joined the company of Malkeet Singh and that she was not
enticed by him. There is no evidence shown by the State that the petitioner
is aware of Malkeet Singh's whereabouts. He is 57 years old. Investigation
in the case is complete. He is also in custody since 02.03.2022.
In view of the above and for the reason that the co-accused
Manjeet Singh, who is similarly placed, has been granted ad interim
anticipatory bail by this Court, the present case is considered to be a fit one
in which the petitioner be directed to be released on regular bail.
Resultantly, subject to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Patiala,
the petitioner is directed to be released on bail.
It is clarified that the above observations have been made only
for the limited purpose of deciding the present regular bail application and
the same would not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
21.07.2022 (Deepak Sibal)
gk Judge
Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
GOPAL KRISHAN
2022.07.22 15:10
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
