Gurdev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 December, 2008

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH



                       Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-25098 of 2008
                                   Date of Decision: December 17, 2008


Gurdev Singh
                                                          .....PETITIONER(S)

                                    VERSUS

State of Punjab
                                                        .....RESPONDENT(S)

                                .     .      .


CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -     Mr. Gulzar Mohammad, Advocate, for
               the petitioner.

               Mr. H.S. Brar,                    Deputy    Advocate
               General, Punjab.


                                .     .      .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

               This        petition         has     been       filed        under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in

FIR No.232 dated 8.8.2008 lodged for offences under

Section(s) 406, 420 IPC with Police Station, Sadar,

Jalandhar.

Contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the petitioner is a property

dealer and is not involved in the business of sending

people abroad. The complainant is inimical towards

the petitioner being distant relative and therefore,

has falsely implicated the petitioner.

               It         has        been        contended           that     no

particulars       of     the    offence          have     been       given    in
 Crl. Misc. No. M-25098 of 2008                                        [2]

relation to the giving of money to the petitioner

i.e. to say that the place and time of handing over

of the money etc., has not been given. Allegation is

that the petitioner took Rs.50,000/- to send

Tejinderpal Singh, husband of the complainant,

abroad. Tejinderpal Singh is not related to the

complainant.

Learned counsel has also raised an issue

that because it is the admitted case of the

complainant that her husband was to be sent abroad by

illegal means, it would be an agreement/ contract

against public policy and therefore, not enforceable

in law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

pointed out that the petitioner has joined

investigation.

Learned counsel for the respondent-

State, on instructions from Surjit Singh, Head

Constable, has stated that indeed the petitioner has

joined investigation and is not required for further

investigation at this stage.

In view of the above statement of

learned counsel for the respondent-State, the

petition is allowed.

Order dated 25.9.2008 is made absolute

and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the

petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing

of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the

Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the
Crl. Misc. No. M-25098 of 2008 [3]

following conditions :-

“(i) The petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer; and

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the
previous permission of the Court.”

This order shall enure till 10 days after the

petitioner receives a notice of filing of final

report u/s 173, Cr.P.C. within which period, the

petitioner would be at liberty to apply for regular

bail.

                                                              (AJAI LAMBA)
December 17, 2008                                                JUDGE
avin