Sweety vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 5870 P&H

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
211
                                                      CRM-M-22070-2022(O&M)
                                                      Date of decision: 01.06.2022
SWEETY

                                                                    ....Petitioner(s)
                                Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                  ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
                         *****

Present : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, DAG Punjab.

***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR

No.15 dated 02.02.2022 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Khilchian, District Amritsar.

A perusal of the case shows that the FIR in instant case has been

registered at the instance of one Manjit Kaur, wherein she has alleged that she had

executed a sale deed pertaining to land measuring 13 kanals situated in village

Alowal Tehsil Khadoor Sahib District Tarn Taran in favour of Amarjit Singh.

Sale consideration in lieu thereof is claimed to have been received by Manjit

Kaur. It is contended that a civil case titled as 'Nishan Singh and others Versus

Manjit Kaur and others' was pending and a decision in the said case was made

against Manjit Kaur and co-accused Hardeep Kaur. The judgment and decree

passed by the Civil Judge was challenged by Hardeep Kaur by means of filing a

civil appeal which was also dismissed. It is contended that she did not have any

transaction with Amarjit Singh, and that a complaint was filed by Amarjit Singh

1 of 3

CRM-M-22070-2022(O&M) -2 -

against Manjit Kaur in relation to a cheque for a sum of Rs.35 lakhs. Learned

counsel contends that the said cheque does not belong to her and that was never

issued pursuant to any compromise effected between the parties. He contends that

it has been revealed that the cheque belongs to a lady namely Sweety (petitioner

herein) and that the number of the said cheque has been mentioned in a forged

compromise deed by Amarjit Singh to trace a claim that the said cheque had been

issued in discharge of a liability due to Amarjit Singh. It is also alleged in the FIR

that Amarjit Singh also forged the signatures of Manjit Kaur on the said

compromise and that she being a resident of Baba Jagir Singh Colony Rayya,

Amritsar had never gone to Fatehgarh Sahib to execute any settlement with them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not a

beneficiary of the entire transaction and that only her cheque leaf has been

misused apparently by Amarjit Singh for the purposes of seeking back his

consideration that had been paid in lieu of the sale deed pertaining to 13 kanals of

land qua which the title of the complainant was not clear. Learned counsel

contends that the petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2022 and that the

investigation in the case is still going on however, the petitioner is in judicial

custody. He submits that investigation of the case is likely to take some time and

no recovery is to be effected the petitioner and her custodial interrogation is not

likely to serve any purpose for the investigation.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the aforesaid contentions

raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties and

taking into consideration the period of custody and also the fact that the petitioner

is not a beneficiary in any manner in the entire gamut of the allegations spread out

2 of 3

CRM-M-22070-2022(O&M) -3 -

in the FIR. Furthermore, there was no occasion or reason for the petitioner to be a

party to the inter se dispute between Amarjit Singh and Manjit Kaur in relation to

the sale deed that had been executed by the Manjit Kaur in favour of Amarjit

Singh/Hardeep Kaur.

Furthermore, the investigation of the case is likely to take some time

and a period of 60 days have already been elapsed since then. The trial being a

Magisterial trial and investigation having not been concluded within 60 days, even

otherwise the petitioner would be entitled to benefit of default bail under Section

167(2) CrPC.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is

admitted to regular bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall

not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an

expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on

the basis of available material.

                                                   (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
                                                         JUDGE
June 01, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
        Whether speaking/reasoned         :       Yes/No
        Whether reportable                :       Yes/No




                                         3 of 3