Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh Bagga vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2014
Author: Jaspal Singh
Bench: Jaspal Singh
206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-36114 of 2014
Date of decision:November 14, 2014
Joginder Singh Bagga
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH
Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Karan Handa, Advocate for
Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate
for the complainant.
Jaspal Singh, J.(Oral)
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 106 dated August 11, 2014 under Sections 365, 420, 406, 354, 120-B and 384 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and Section 66-A of IT Act, registered at Police Station Division No.5, District Jalandhar.
From the contents of FIR it emerges that there is a dispute in between Amarjeet Singh and his wife Daljit Kaur Sandhu, whereas, petitioner is distantly related to Amarjeet Singh. The facts unfolded by Daljit Kaur Sandhu are that on June 22, 2014, Amarjeet Singh accompanied by Raja and Sam took her daughter Monika Sandhu forcibly on gun point. On the next date i.e. June 23, 2014 at about 9.30 PM, she (complainant) received a telephonic call of her daughter to the effect that accused had taken her to Delhi at the residence of the maternal uncle of Amarjeet Singh and now she is in Gurdwara Bangla Sahib, New Delhi. Thereafter, she alongwith her family members reached at Gurdwara Bangla Sahib and took her daughter to Jalandhar. Further allegation SHAM SUNDER 2014.11.17 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document high court chandigarh CRM-M-36114 of 2014 -2- levelled against the petitioner is that he (petitioner) also extended threats to her life on telephone.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from Inspector Sukhjit Singh, has stated at the bar that petitioner has joined the investigation in compliance of order dated October 24, 2014 and he is not required for further investigation/interrogation.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that petitioner actually participated in the crime when Monika Sandhu daughter of complainant was taken from her custody on gun point. She was kept at the house of petitioner; besides, he also extended threats on telephone to the life of complainant.
This Court has given an anxious thought to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
Keeping in view the allegations levelled against the petitioner, which have been referred to above coupled with the fact that he has already joined the investigation, nothing is to be recovered from him; and that person is no more required for further investigation, this Court deems it a fit case to exercise the discretion envisaged under Section 438 Cr.P.C, without expressing any opinion with regard to role alleged to have been played by the petitioner and keeping in view above referred discussed facts, the order dated October 24, 2014 passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute. However, petitioner shall continue to abide by the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
Disposed of.
November 14, 2014 (JASPAL SINGH)
sham JUDGE
SHAM SUNDER
2014.11.17 13:53
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
high court chandigarh