Dismissed

Sukhjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2012CRM-M/13285/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two bail applications concerning cheating under IPC sections 420 and 120-B, the court rejected claims of separate innocence and health grounds. The judgment held accused persons were not entitled to bail given the serious nature of the offenses and custodial necessity.

What did the court decide?

The petitions for regular bail and pre-arrest bail were dismissed; petitioners are denied bail.

Sukhjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-13285 and 13296 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-13285 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 8^th , 2012

Sukhjit Singh

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.... Respondent

2. Criminal Misc. No. M-13296 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 8^th , 2012

Davinder Kaur

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶17

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

Present Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶19

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶20

Sukhjit Singh, the petitioner by way of Criminal Misc. No.M13285 of 2012 seeks regular bail and Davinder Kaur, by way of Criminal Misc. No. 13296 of 2012 seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 32 dated 21.3.2012 at Police Station Daba, District

¶21

Crl. Misc. No.M-13285 and 13296 of 2012

¶22

¶23

Ludhiana for an offence punishable under sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant claims a contract to have been entered between her and the petitioners for sending her to Canada. According to him, if such a contract is broken, it is not an offence. He has further submitted that if the contract is claimed to be illegal, then it is the complainant who is also to be blamed.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the complainant had some money dispute with one of the petitioners. According to him, Davinder Kaur, petitioner is not involved in this matter. According to him, she has been accused in this case just for putting pressure on the other accused for return of money. He has further submitted that the allegations against Davinder Kaur are moreover, general in nature. He has further submitted that the petitioner was not there in the other countries where the complainant had even opened an account and had stayed for a period of 2-1/2 years.

¶26

In my opinion, the allegations against Davinder Kaur are as specific as they are against the other petitioner, namely, Sukhjit Singh alias Sukhi. The information with the complainant was that Davinder Kaur alongwith her son Sukhjit Singh and husband Zora Singh had been sending people abroad. When the complainant came to talk to them in this regard, she was told by all the three to be sent to Canada against the payment of Rs.20.00 lacs. So, it cannot be said that the case of Davinder Kaur is on a better footing than the case against Sukhjit Singh.

¶27

Crl. Misc. No.M-13285 and 13296 of 2012

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that there is a cyst in the ovary of Davinder Kaur, which could even prove to be malignant. The cyst is not a recent finding and if there would have been any malignancy, that would have been placed on record. There is treatment for such cysts and on this ground alone, the petitioner who is facing accusation of such a grave nature, cannot be granted anticipatory bail.

¶30

The complainant committed no offence in asking the petitioners for being sent to Canada. People go to Canada in legal as well as illegal manner. The complainant never asked the petitioners to send her in illegal manner. There is a complete network of the petitioners every where and it is not necessary for the petitioner, Sukhjit Singh to be present in other countries where the complainant was made to stay against her wishes.

¶31

It is a case where a woman has been made to suffer in countries, like Mongolia, Combodia, Singapore, Thailand etc. She wanted to go to Canada and as she was forced by the circumstances of being a divorcee and the only parent to look after her two children, she parted with all her money in favour of the petitioners and others and stayed away from her children with a view to go to Canada to earn a handsome amount for bringing up her children in a better way. She was taken to several countries with the false promise to ultimately send her to Canada and in the last, she was left in the lurch and she had to come to India after contacting her parents in India. Since the offences of this nature are on rise, every such case has to be taken as an offence

¶32

Crl. Misc. No.M-13285 and 13296 of 2012

¶33

¶34

towards the society. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner, Davinder Kaur is, thus, required. Hence, the petitioner, Davinder Kaur is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. Similarly, the case being quite serious, petitioner Sukhjit Singh is also not entitled to regular bail. The petitions are, consequently, dismissed.

¶35

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶36

May 8^th , 2012 som

Sukhjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhjit Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab through CBI and Others

Mukhtiar Singh Vs CBI and Ors.

Dayawati Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Amarjeet Kaur and Anr. Vs Ranvir Singh

Baldev Singh Gill & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Darvinder Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab and Anr.`