Sarabjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 14289 P&H

106

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                            CHANDIGARH



                                        CRM-M-52017-2022
                                        Date of Decision: 14.11.2022

Sarabjit Kaur                                              ... Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Punjab                                              ... Respondent



CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

Present:     Mr.Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner

             Mr.GS Sandhu, DAG, Punjab

             Mr.Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for complainant
                              ...

The petitioner has approached this Court by filing this

petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in

FIR No.117 dated 27.9.2022 under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC

registered at Police Station Kathunangal, District Amritsar.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of this Court, Mr. GS Sandhu, DAG, Punjab

accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. At this stage, Mr.

Ritesh Pandey, Advocate appears and files Vakalatnama on behalf of the

complainant.

It is alleged in the complaint moved by the complainant-

Harpreet Singh against Arshdeep Singh and Sarabjit Kaur that the

accused persons agreed to send the complainant and his wife to France in

a sum of Rs.17.00 lacs and as such he transferred the money in the bank

account of accused. Thereafter accused persons started delaying the matter

1 of 4

CRM-M-52017-2022 :2:

on one pretext or the other. Accused persons also stopped to receive his

phone calls. It is alleged that accused persons in connivance with each

other have cheated the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the

petitioner is being dragged in the present case without any connecting

evidence against her. The petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the

basis that the amount has been transferred into the account of her son.

Learned counsel further submits that nothing is to be recovered from the

petitioner and thus no custodial interrogation is required.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the State assisted by the

learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner alongwith

other co-accused have committed serious offence and a huge amount is

involved in this case which is yet to be recovered. Learned counsel

submits that in the FIR, there is specific allegation against the petitioner

that after the transfer of Rs.8.00 lakhs from the account of complainant

Harpreet Singh into the account of petitioner's son- Arshdeep Singh, even

then his mother Sarabjeet Kaur called the complainant at her home and

gave the photocopy of the visa and demanded Rs.4.00 lakhs on the pretext

of getting the ticket issued. Upon this, on 25.2.2022, the complainant

deposited Rs.2.00 lakhs in the account of son of the petitioner and further

a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs have been deposited in the account of petitioner's

son. Learned counsel submits that it has been found that petitioner's son

and the petitioner in connivance with each other defrauded the

complainant to the tune of Rs.12,35,000/-. The investigation is at initial

stage and recovery is yet to be effected from the accused persons and as

such custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for finding out

the modus operandi of commission of offence.

                             2 of 4

 CRM-M-52017-2022                                         :3:

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the

considered opinion that there are chain of events and persons in the

commission of offence, as per prosecution story. The petitioner has been

specifically named in the FIR and there are specific allegations against

the petitioner that on her asking the complainant deposited the aforesaid

amount in the account of her son. There are serious allegations of

cheating and fraud and prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the

commission of offence in connivance with other co-accused is writ large.

Recovery is yet to be made. In this view of the matter, I do not deem it a

fit case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The

petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary for complete and effective

investigation. In case the same is denied to the investigating agency, it

would leave many gaps and loopholes, adversely affecting the

investigation, which is uncalled for. Moreover, investigation is at initial

stage.

Needless to say, such type of cheating, duping and fraud is

rampant in our society and is often adopted by fraudsters and

unscrupulous persons on pretext of sending innocent people abroad and

thereby duping them. This has become a cakewalk to amass wealth

illegally over night which needs to be curbed with an iron hand to save

the innocent people.

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.

                             3 of 4

 CRM-M-52017-2022                                             :4:

In view of the discussion made above, the present petition

being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be

construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                      (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
                                              JUDGE



14.11.2022
MFK

Whether speaking/reasoned                               Yes/No

Whether Reportable                                      Yes/No




                             4 of 4