Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravina @ Ramandeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 25 November, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Misc. No. M-33064 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-33064 of 2013
Date of decision: 25.11.2013.
Ravina @ Ramandeep Kaur ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent - State.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.13 dated 19.01.2013 registered under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Division No.5, Civil Line, District Ludhiana City.
At the time of issuing notice of motion on 03.10.2013, the following contentions were raised by learned counsel for the petitioner: -
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case at the instance of her husband with whom she is not having cordial relations. No allegations Rani Neetu 2013.11.29 13:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-33064 of 2013 2 is there against the petitioner as neither she is signatory to the registered sale deed nor she has impersonated anyone during the execution of the sale deed. Learned counsel further contends that as per case of the complainant, he has cancelled the Power of Attorney vide Vasika dated 15.4.2010, whereas, the land in dispute was sold on 9.6.2010. Learned counsel also contends that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and nothing is to be recovered from her as all documents relevant for the case are already in the custody of police. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Charanjit Singh, Surinder Pal Singh and Manpreet Singh have approached this Court by way of filing two separate petitions bearing Crl. Misc. Nos. M-4739 and 4542 of 2013, wherein, interim anticipatory bail has been granted to them xxx xxx xxx."
After considering the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, a direction was issued to the petitioner that in the event of arrest, she shall be released on interim bail.
Learned State counsel submits that an account was Rani Neetu 2013.11.29 13:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-33064 of 2013 3 opened by the petitioner in Oriental Bank of Commerce at Ludhiana in the name of one Surjit Kaur by posing herself to be Surjit Kaur and amount was deposited by way of cheque and thereafter, the amount was also withdrawn.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not signatory to the registered sale deed and the petitioner never impersonated anyone during the execution of sale deed and no offence is made out against her.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that account was opened by the petitioner in the name of Surjit Kaur and petitioner signed as Surjit Kaur and transactions of depositing and withdrawal of amount are also there.
It cannot be said that it was not a case of impersonation and no fault was there on the part of the petitioner as account was opened by the petitioner in the name of Surjit Kaur. Signatures were also proved. Simply by saying that Power of Attorney was of earlier period and the same was cancelled prior to selling of the land, no ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail.
The petition is dismissed as such.
25.11.2013 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
neetu JUDGE
Rani Neetu
2013.11.29 13:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh