Sunita vs State of Punjab

Through the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.,

the petitioner seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 58 dated

11.06.2016, registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, at Police

Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur.

The case of the prosecution is that on the pretext of sending the

complainant''s son to United States of America, the complainant had paid to

the petitioner and her husband an amount of over ` 30 lacs, on receipt of

which, his son, instead of United States of America, was sent to Thailand.

On return from Thailand, when the complainant along with his son

approached the petitioner and her husband to return the money, they

refused to do so.

Seeking anticipatory bail for the petitioner, learned counsel

submits that there is no inducement by the petitioner and even if the FIR is

taken as a gospel truth, which the petitioner does not admit to, no money is

even alleged to have been handed over to her by the complainant.

Learned State counsel, as also learned counsel for the

complainant oppose the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the

ground that there are serious allegations against her of having accepted a

huge amount of over ` 30 lacs on the pretext of sending the complainant''s

son to United States of America, who instead was sent to Thailand.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Kulwinder

Singh, has further apprised the Court with regard to following three criminal

cases, in which the petitioner is involved and where the allegations are

similar as in the present case :-

Particulars of the case Status

FIR No. 214 dated 24.12.2013, registered under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983, at Police Station Laddowal, District Ludhiana; (Challan in this case filed on 06.07.2016)

Pending

FIR No. 21 dated 18.03.2009, registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Cantt., District Jalandhar Convicted

FIR No. 21 dated 11.03.2013, registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983, at Police Station Bilga, District Jalandhar Matter Compromised

The involvement of the petitioner in the afore-referred three

FIRs along with status thereof does not find mention in the present petition.

These facts, in my opinion, are material particulars, which are required to be

disclosed by an accused in a petition, through which he/she seeks

anticipatory bail as pendency of other criminal cases against the applicant

certainly throws light on his/her antecedents, which is a relevant factor to be

considered by the Court while considering the grant of anticipatory bail.

The involvement of the petitioner in the above cases having not

been disclosed by the petitioner in her petition, in my opinion, disentitles

her for even being heard on merits.

Even otherwise, in FIR No. 214 dated 24.12.2013, registered

under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act,

1983, at Police Station Laddowal, District Ludhiana, the allegations against

the petitioner are similar to the allegations in the present case and after

investigation, the police in that case has filed a report under Section 173

Cr.P.C. finding the petitioner guilty. The petitioner is reportedly

absconding in that case, as a result whereof, non-bailable warrants have

been issued against her by the competent Court seeking her appearance for

06.04.2017. Her conduct in the above case is not appreciated.

In view of the aforesaid conduct on the part of the petitioner,

she has disentitled herself for being granted the relief of anticipatory bail in

the present case.

It is not disputed that the present case was lodged in the month

of June 2016 and even after the passage of over nine months, the husband of

the petitioner is still evading arrest.

The allegations against the petitioner are rather serious of

having accepted, along with her co-accused, a huge amount of over ` 30

lacs on the pretext of sending the complainant''s son to United States of

America but after the receipt of money, the complainant''s son was sent to

Thailand instead of United States of America.

The money allegedly paid to the petitioner needs to be

recovered.

Whether the petitioner has duped other persons as well in

similar fashion, especially in view of the afore-referred three cases, needs to

be probed with some depth.

In view of the above, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of

the petitioner is warranted.

Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.

Nothing observed herein above shall be considered as an

expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case.