Veena Soni vs State Of Punjab

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.30, dated 16.3.2019, Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur,

Punjab, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 120-B IPC.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Gurwinder Kaur wherein it has been alleged that she has two sons namely Jaspreet Singh and

Harpreet Singh who are both unemployed and are looking for a job and that she came in contact with Gurjit Singh and his wife Ritu through her

younger brother-in-law and the said persons represented that they could arrange for a job for her son as they have links with senior officer and

demanded an amount of `7 lakhs for the said purpose. It is alleged that the complainant being taken in by the said representation gave an amount of

`3.5 lakhs to the aforesaid persons for the purpose of arranging for job for her son. It is alleged that subsequently her son Harpreet Singh was called to

Pathankot where Gurjit Singh was present alongwith one unknown lady and some other boys where all the boys were asked to sit in a vehicle and

were taken to MES Office in Dalhousie and where they were asked in to fill in some forms. It is further alleged that after about 5-6 months, her son

was called to Chandigarh by accused Gurjit Singh where Pardeep Singh Bajwa was also present and a dope test was conducted upon her son and on

all the other boys. It is further alleged that subsequently a letter pertaining to training was also received by her son but no employment was got

arranged for her son. Later when the complainant threatened the accused that she would be lodging a complaint in the police, then the aforesaid

Pardeep Singh Bajwa and Gurjit Singh executed a written agreement dated 12.10.2017 in favour of complainant’s son Jaspreet Singh in respect of

a plot in village Khairabad, Tehsil and District Amritsar but later on it transpired that Pardeep Singh was not owner of the said plot and nor any sale

deed was executed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she is not named in the FIR and that there is only a passing reference to one unknown lady in

the FIR and that in any case there is no allegation in the FIR even in respect of the said unknown lady.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that during the course of investigation it had surfaced that the petitioner was in league

with the remaining accused and that in these circumstances no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It has however, been informed that the

petitioner has since joined investigation.

Having regard to the fact that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in FIR and that the petitioner is a lady and has already joined

investigation, no case for custodial interrogation is made out. The petition, as such, is accepted and interim directions issued vide order dated 5.4.2019

are made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear and join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with

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