IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM M-30404 of 2009 (O/M).
Date of Decision : November 17, 2009.
Sukhbir Singh
...... Petitioner(s).
Versus.
State of Punjab
..... Respondent(s).
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present:- Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate,
for the petitioner (s).
Mr. A.S. Rai, A.A.G. Punjab,
for respondent-State.
Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate,
for the complainant.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
Counsel for the petitioner states that in compliance of the order
dated 04.11.2009, passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the
investigation. He further states that the original affidavit, which is alleged to
have been given by the complainant to the petitioner, has been handed over
to the police.
This fact is not disputed by counsel for respondent-State, on
instructions from H.C. Tarsem Singh, Police Station Division No. 5,
Ludhiana. He further states that, as of now, the petitioner is not required for
further investigation.
Counsel for the complainant vehemently argues that the
affidavit, which has been given by the complainant, and is alleged to have
been taken from her by force, clearly shows that how influential the
CRM M-30404 of 2009 (O/M). -2-
petitioner is. He has relied upon the photographs taken from the Suvidha
Centre in Close Circuit Television Camera, wherein he contends that there
are, apart from the petitioner, five other people accompanying the petitioner,
who were present and they forced the complainant to give this affidavit. He
further contends that the petitioner was never a student of Sethi Study
Circle, which is alleged in the present petition, although, the complainant
was one of the student. Two certificates to that effect have been taken on
record. He further contends that, apart from this, there are other F.I.Rs.
registered against the father of the petitioner, who is a very influential
person and, therefore, concession of bail should not be granted to the
petitioner. His further contention is that grant of bail to the petitioner at this
stage, would prejudice the investigation of the case.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
records of the case.
A detailed order dated 04.11.2009, was passed by this Court,
recording the contentions of counsel for the petitioner. On consideration of
the same, notice of motion was issued with a direction to the petitioner to
join the investigation. The investigating agency, which is the best judge
with regard to the investigation, has come up and stated that the petitioner
has joined the investigation and he is no more required. The assertion of
counsel for the complainant that there were five other people accompanying
the petitioner in the Close Circuit Television photograph footage may be
correct, but the complainant is nowhere in the said C.C.T.V. photograph
footage. The question with regard to the petitioner not being member of
Sethi Study Circle is also a question of evidence, which has to be gone into
at the time of trial or at the time when further investigation is conducted by
CRM M-30404 of 2009 (O/M). -3-
the police. There is no reason that the bail should not be confirmed, which
has earlier been granted to the petitioner as he has already joined the
investigation and the investigating agency does not want him for the said
purpose.
In view of the above, the order dated 04.11.2009 is confirmed.
However, the petitioner shall be bound by the provisions of Section 438 (2)
Cr.P.C.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
November 17, 2009.
sjks.