Sarabjit Kaur vs State of Punjab

S.S. Saron, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

The Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against her on 6.3.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC.

The FIR (Annexure P1) has been registered on the complaint of Surjit Mohinder Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that Sony Kaur, Balwinder Singh Gill, Sarabjit Kaur (Petitioner) who were residents of Canada had come to India in March 2007 to solemnize the marriage of Sony Kaur. The marriage of Sony Kaur was settled with the son of the complainant. Balwinder Singh Gill and Sarabjit Kaur (Petitioner) came directly to the house of the complainant. They represented that in case the complainant wanted to settle his son in Canada, then he would have to pay Rs. 15 lacs in cash; besides, bear expenses of the marriage. Then as per the earlier proposal, after 2-3 days the accused came to the house of the complainant at Kot Kapura. At that time, Ujjagar Singh son of Modan Singh was also present at the house of the complainant.

The complainant informed the accused in the presence of the said Ujjagar Singh that no cheating is to be done with him and he was an employee. Besides, he had arranged the money with great difficulty. The accused convinced him that there would be no cheating and his son would be permanently settled in Canada. On 13.3.2007, the accused again came at the residence of the complainant at Kot Kapura. At that time, Manjit Singh son of Guriqbal Singh, resident of village Samagh and Ujjagar Singh son of Modan Singh resident of Kot Kapura were present. The complainant handed over Rs. 15 lacs to Balwinder Singh, who further gave to his wife Sarabjit Kaur (Petitioner). Thereafter, they asked the complainant to solemnize the marriage on 17.3.2007 at Kot Kapura. The marriage of Sony Kaur was solemnized with Gurbhej Singh, son of the complainant and the complainant spent Rs. 5 lacs on the marriage. After some days the accused went back to Canada and they convinced the complainant that they would call the son of the complainant very soon. However, after reaching Canada, the accused did not take any step for calling the son of the complainant. After some days, they stopped hearing the telephone also. The daughter of the complainant was already settled at Canada and the complainant talked with the accused after contacting her. Then the accused informed the complainant that they would not call his son to Canada. They had to cheat and they had cheated and the complainant could do anything. It is alleged that the accused intentionally and with an intention to cheat the complainant had solemnized the marriage of Sony Kaur to the son of the complainant namely Gurbhej Singh and had cheated him of Rs. 15 lacs; besides, Rs. 5 lacs spent on the marriage.

The Petitioner was arrested in the present case on 10.3.2011 and since then she is in custody. The other accused in the case has not been arrested. The prosecution is to establish its case by leading evidence and material on record. The custody of the Petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner after reaching Canada, immediately submitted necessary papers of the son of the complainant before the Embassy for their approval and after refusal of the papers from the Embassy, she filed an appeal and after rejection of the appeal, she had taken every step in order to call the son of the complainant to Canada, but unfortunately the Embassy did not permit the boy (son of the complainant) and refused the Visa. The papers submitted by the daughter of the Petitioner before the Canadian Embassy have been placed on record as Annexure P4 (Colly). It is submitted that the Petitioner''s daughter after getting refusal of the papers, had come to India twice and she stayed with the son of the complainant and thereafter she went back.

Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant apprehends that the Petitioner is likely to again go back to Canada and the progress in the case would be delayed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has, however, submitted that the Petitioner would surrender her passport in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the Petitioner on her furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot and on her surrendering the passport shall be admitted to bail.