High CourtsSingle Bench

Sandeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 P&H CK 0042

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 420 · Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014 — Section 13 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 17746 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 362 words

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered against her vide FIR No.39 dated

30.05.2020 at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala, under Sections 420/120-B IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professional

(Regulation) Act, 2014.

2.

At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 08.07.2020, the following order was passed:

“The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the main allegations in the present case, as regards depriving of an amount of Rs.3.10 lakhs

on the pretext of sending the complainant abroad, are against Gurvinderpal Singh i.e. husband of the petitioner Sandeep Kaur and that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated simply in order to pressurize the aforesaid Gurvinderpal Singh so as to extract amount from him.

Notice of motion for 18.11.2020.

Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to her furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction

of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the

Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Meanwhile, the learned counsel for the

petitioner shall seek instructions from his client as to whether she and her husband are willing to return some amount to the complainant.â€​

3.

Learned State counsel upon instructions has informed that pursuant to interim directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has since joined

investigation and is no longer required for any custodial interrogation. It has further been informed that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

4.

In view of the aforestated position, wherein the petitioner, who is a lady, has already joined investigation and is not required for any custodial

interrogation, the petition is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2020 are hereby made absolute subject to

the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also

abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.