Punjab-Haryana High Court
Palwinder Kaur @ Gogi vs State Of Punjab on 4 May, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
CRM No.M-33434 of 2011. -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
(1)
Crl. Misc. No. M-33434 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: May 04, 2012.
Palwinder Kaur @ Gogi
..........PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..........RESPONDENT(s).
*******
(2)
Crl. Misc. No. M-34516 of 2011 (O&M)
Arundeep Singh @ Tinku
..........PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..........RESPONDENT(s).
*******
(3)
Crl. Misc. No. M-200 of 2012 (O&M)
Sukhbir Singh
..........PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..........RESPONDENT(s).
*******
(4)
Crl. Misc. No. M-7047 of 2012 (O&M)
CRM No.M-33434 of 2011. -2-
Puran Kaur
..........PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..........RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. P.K. Dutt, Advocate
for petitioner Palwinder Kaur @ Gogi.
Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate
for petitioners Arundeep Singh @ Tinku,
Sukhbir Singh and Puran Kaur.
Mr. Sumeet Abrol, A.A.G. Punjab,
counsel for respondent-State.
*******
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
This order will dispose of all the afore-mentioned applications for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in FIR No.203 dated 21.05.2009 registered under Sections 363-A, 366-A, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code (Offences under Sections 376, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 182 of Indian Penal Code added later on ), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Brief allegations are that a girl namely Pooja daughter of complainant was engaged to work in the house of petitioner-accused Puran Kaur for a salary of Rs.1,000/- per month due to intervention of petitioner-accused Palwinder Kaur, who used to reside as tenant in the house of Puran Kaur. Thereafter petitioner-accused Puran Kaur in CRM No.M-33434 of 2011. -3- connivance with co-accused Tinku @ Arundeep Singh and Sukhbir Singh and without consent of parents of Pooja sent her to New Delhi at the residence of Sukhbir Singh. She was taken to Delhi by Tinku @ Arundeep Singh and Sukhbir Singh. Report was lodged by father of prosecutrix regarding missing of their daughter Pooja against petitioner-accused Puran Kaur, Palwinder Kaur, Sukhbir Singh and Tinku @ Arundeep Singh. During investigation, petitioners-accused Sukhbir Singh, Puran Kaur and Arundeep Singh @ Tinku produced one girl Lallian in place of Pooja before police. Statement of that girl was recorded in which she stated that she is Pooja daughter of complainant in this case. However, later on she gave statement Annexure P-7 before learned Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on 19.02.2011 in which she stated that she is not daughter of complainant and that she had gone to police station seeking their help for sending her to her parents and that while they were in police station, Puran Kaur met her along with her son Sukha and raised a threat to her to give statement to the police as per their advice. According to her, in the police station, Sukha raised a threat by showing knife and Puran Kaur also promised her to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- if she would do as per the terms dictated by them. As per her further statement, on their asking, she told to the police that she was daughter of present complainant Sonu Parkash and Sundari and that she stated their addresses as stated by petitioner- accused Puran Kaur.
Later on, daughter of complainant Pooja was recovered and she gave statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Puran Kaur petitioner- accused forcibly sent her with her son Sukhbir Singh and grand son Arundeep Singh for Delhi where she stayed for about one year and during this period, Sukhbir Singh used to tease her and used to indulge her in CRM No.M-33434 of 2011. -4- wrongful activities. Shankar, servant of Sukhbir Singh also used to tease her and indulge her in wrongful activities.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for petitioner- accused Palwinder Kaur that investigation has already been completed, challan as well as supplementary challan filed and charges have also been framed. It is further submitted that however, in this entire case, even as per prosecution version, there is no role of Palwinder Kaur @ Gogi except that she got employed Pooja daughter of complainant with co-accused Puran Kaur at the request of Puran Kaur as well as complainant and that she was employed as per consent of complainant even as per case of prosecution and that complainant was aggrieved when his daughter was sent to Delhi by Puran Kaur without his consent and when her whereabouts were not disclosed to him by Puran Kaur. It has also been contended that during further investigation, it came out even as per statement of Lallian and Pooja that there was no role of present petitioner in sending Pooja to Delhi and that she was also not involved in any manner in committing any acts of atrocities upon Pooja in the house of son of Puran Kaur. She is also not involved in producing some other girl Lallian as Pooja before the Court as she was not to get any benefit. It has also been contended that there is nothing to show that petitioner was present in the Court when Lallian was produced in the Court and rather as per report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. she was produced by the police and before the police, she was produced by co-accused and not by petitioner Palwinder Kaur.
It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner- accused Arundeep Singh @ Tinu, Sukhbir Singh and Puran Kaur that girl Lallian was not produced by any of these petitioner-accused. It is also CRM No.M-33434 of 2011. -5- contended that false allegations have been levelled against all the petitioners. It has also been contended that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner-accused Tinku @ Arundeep singh and that allegation of rape are against accused Sukhbir Singh and Shankar, who is proclaimed offender.
Bail applications have been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioners-accused and that material witnesses including prosecutrix are yet to be examined.
However, so far as petitioner-accused Palwinder Kaur is concerned, daughter of complainant never worked in her house. As per case of prosecution, Pooja worked in the house of co-accused Puran Kaur and petitioner was residing as a tenant in her house and that Pooja was sent to Delhi at the house of petiitoner-accused Sukhbir Singh and she was taken to Delhi by Sukhbir Singh and Arundeep Singh @ Tinku, where she was maltreated and forcibly kept without informing her parents.
Nothing has come on the record that petitioner Palwinder Kaur was in the knowledge that Pooja has been sent to Delhi without the consent of her parents. Nothing has been shown to this Court on behalf of State that she also produced wrong girl Lallian before the police. She has been continuing in custody since September, 2011 and trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.
Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, application for regular bail filed on behalf of petitioner Palwinder Kaur is allowed.
Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Amritsar. So far as the bail applications of petitioners-accused Arundeep CRM No.M-33434 of 2011. -6- Singh @ Tinku, Sukhbir Singh and Puran Kaur are concerned, there are serious allegations against all of them. A minor girl Pooja was forcibly kept in the house by Sukhbir Singh and Arundeep Singh @ Tinku in connivance with Puran Kaur and act of rape was committed upon her by Sukhbir Singh as well as his servant Shankar. She was taken to Delhi by Sukhbir Singh and Arundeep Singh @ Tinku on the asking of Puran Kaur. Prosecutrix is yet to be examined.
Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not such a case in which concession of bail should be granted to petitioners-accused Arundeep Singh @ Tinku, Sukhbir Singh and Puran Kaur. There is no merit in the afore-mentioned applications for bail filed by petitioners Arundeep Singh @ Tinku, Sukhbir Singh and Puran Kaur. The same are, hereby, dismissed.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 04, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.