Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspreet Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 28 October, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-48189-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48189-2024
Reserved on: 16.10.2024
Pronounced on: 28.10.2024
Jaspreet Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Sylvester Stephen, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
19 23.06.2023 State Cyber Crime, 420/120-B/384/170/506/201/389 IPC and
Mohali 66-D of IT Act
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking
regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 21 of the status report filed by the State, the accused has the
following criminal antecedents:
Sr. FIR Date Offenses Police Station
No No.
1 60 23.03.2022 384/34 IPC City-2 Mansa, Mansa,
Punjab
2 269 09.11.2023 384/506/120-B IPC City-2, District Mansa,
Punjab
3 18 25.01.2014 384/506/420/465/467/468/471/ City-2, District Mansa,
120-B IPC Punjab
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State,
which reads as follows:
"4. That, in February 2022, the complainant received a
WhatsApp video call on his mobile number "9814012093" from
Manpreet's WhatsApp number '9056176726' and found that an
adult/porn video was playing on other side, the complainant
quickly disconnected the call.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-48189-2024
5. That, on 10th March, 2022, Manpreet called the
complainant in her aunt's house in Mansa, where apart from
Manpreet, one more woman namely Jaspreet (petitioner) who
introduced herself as her mother of Manpreet and two men who
introduced themselves as Sukhpreet Singh and Gurpyar Singh,
were present. By showing a video to the complainant in which his
(complainant's) face was on half of the screen and a porn video
was on the other half, they threatened the complainant that they
would put the video on social media everywhere and file a case of
sexual harassment against him. The Complainant further
disclosed that the video was of that day when he received a
WhatsApp call from Manpreet on which an adult video was
playing.
6. That, the complainant alleged that on pretext of threat of
circulation of aforementioned video and filing of sexual
harassment/rape case against the him, the amount of
approximately Rs 65,00,000/- was extorted from him by above
mentioned gang."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
petitioner and their family.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report,
which read as follows:
"16. That, on 10.04.2024 Petitioner/accused was arrested and
during the interrogation, she disclosed that she has cheated the
complainant by impersonating as the mother of co-accused
Kiranpal Kaur @ Manpreet Kaur and above mentioned Ram
Singh @ Sukhpreet, Kiranpal Kaur @ Manpreet and Harinder
Singh are her gang members. They had divided all the money
duped from the complainant amongst themselves.
19. That, on 11.03.2022 petitioner/accused sent Rs 30,000/-
to co-accused Harpinder Singh in his HDFC Bank account no
50100364081807 from her Punjab National Bank account
17072191020143. Apart from, this in the Forensic Report of
mobile set of accused Ram Singh found that mobile number and
copy of Aaddhar card of petitioner/accused is saved in the mobile
phone of accused Ram Singh and petitioner/accused had called
multiple time to complainant from her mobile no. 8556816276 to
complainant's mobile no. 9814012093. From these above
mentioned fact, it has been cleared that petitioner/accused is the
gang members of above mentioned gang and they had cheated
complainant."
7. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. There
is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. Per the
custody certificate dated 15.10.2024, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 06
months 03 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled
with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to
this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-48189-2024
8. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official
webpage.
9. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest
Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must
be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
10. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the
following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
11. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
12. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence,
influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any
witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the
Court.
13. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
14. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants
to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
15. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
28.10.2024 (ANOOP CHITKARA)
Jyoti Sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
