Dismissed

Parveen Kumari @ Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Aug 2011CRM-M/20650/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge order dismissing four petitions for anticipatory bail involving allegations of cheating related to sending victims to Kuwait. The court held that since money was unrecovered and the visas were tourist rather than work permits, the cases were unfit for bail.

What did the court decide?

All four petitions for pre-arrest bail were dismissed; interim bail in CRM-M-11242-2011 was vacated.

Parveen Kumari @ Balbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CRM-M-20650-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-20651-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-20652-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-11242-2011 (O&M)

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

:::::::

¶4

IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

(1)		CRM-M-20650-2011 (O&M) Date of decision :19.08.2011.
Parveen Kumari alias Balbir Kaur		...Petitioner
	Versus
State of Punjab		...Respondent
(2)		CRM-M-20651-2011 (O&M) Date of decision :19.08.2011.
Harmesh Kumar		...Petitioner
	Versus
State of Punjab		...Respondent
(3)		CRM-M-20652-2011 (O&M) Date of decision :19.08.2011.
Parveen Kumari alias Balbir Kaur		...Petitioner
	Versus
State of Punjab		...Respondent
(4)		CRM-M-11242-2011 (O&M) Date of decision :19.08.2011.
Balbir Kaur		...Petitioner
	Versus
State of Punjab		...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTI	CE RAKE	SH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advo for the petitioner(s).	cate,
Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Pu *****	njab.

¶6

CRM-M-20650-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-20651-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-20652-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-11242-2011 (O&M)

¶7

[ 2 ]

¶8

:::::::

¶9

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

¶10

This order shall dispose of four petitions bearing CRM-M-206502011 titled as Parveen Kumari alias Balbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab', CRM-M-20651-2011 titled as Harmesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab', CRM-M-20652-2011 titled as Parveen Kumari alias Balbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab' and CRM-M-11242-2011 titled as Balbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab' wherein all the petitioner(s) have prayed for pre-arrest bail in the cases bearing FIR No.63 dated 09.05.2011, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC (CRM-M-20650-2011 & CRM-M-20651-2011), FIR No.59 dated 07.05.2011, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC (CRM-M-20652-2011) and FIR No.12 dated 07.02.2011, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC (CRM-M-11242-2011), all registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur. Notice of motion was issued in all the four cases but interim bail was granted only to Balbir Kaur in CRM-M-11242-2011.

¶11

The allegations against the petitioner(s) are that they have duped the complainant(s) Sandeep Kumar for 2,00,000/- in FIR No.63, Harvinder Singh for 2,90,000/- in FIR No.59 and Kulwinder Singh for `3,46,000/- in FIR No.12, on the pretext of sending them to Kuwait on work permit where Hardeep Kumar, one of the co-accused, is living.

¶12

It is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the aforesaid amount has been deposited in the account of Hardeep Kumar. However, it is argued that the complainant(s) were sent to Kuwait on work permit but there they could not adjust and came back. On the contrary, learned State Counsel has submitted that huge money was charged from the complainant(s) for sending them to Kuwait on work permit, whereas they were sent there on tourist visa.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has failed to produce even, prima facie, evidence with regard to sending the complainant(s) to Kuwait on work permit, rather the passport of one of the complainants shows that he has got the visa for Kuwait for three months only and nothing was mentioned therein that it is on account of work permit. Hence, at this stage it appears that

¶14

CRM-M-20650-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-20651-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-20652-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-11242-2011 (O&M)

¶15

[ 3 ]

¶16

:::::::

¶17

the complainant(s) were sent to Kuwait not on work permit but on tourist visa. Thus, without making any observation on the merits of the case(s), I do not find these cases fit for grant of anticipatory bail as the money is yet to be recovered. Hence, all the four petitions are hereby dismissed. Resultantely, the interim order dated 19.04.2011 granted in CRM-M-11242-2011 stands vacated.

¶18

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected

¶19

cases.

¶20

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶21

August 19, 2011 vinod*

Parveen Kumari @ Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kumari @ Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Rajwant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Aman @ Gullu Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Gupta Vs State of Haryana

Pooja Rai Vs State of Haryana

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab