Allowed

Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jan 2021CRM-M/34982/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition filed under CrPC, the single judge granted regular bail to Paramjit Singh accused under IPC sections 384, 420, 506, and 120-B for alleged matrimonial fraud. The court accepted the petition, deeming further detention unnecessary as it would not serve any useful purpose pending the trial.

What did the court decide?

Order for release of petitioner on regular bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

¶2

CRM-M-34982-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:-7.1.2021

¶3

Paramjit Singh … Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶8

Present:Mr. Satwant Singh Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab, assisted by SI Mohan Singh.

¶9

(proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

¶10

¶11

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .(Oral)

¶12

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.128 dated 22.09.2020 at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala under Sections 384, 420, 506, 120-B IPC.

¶13

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Gurcharan Singh, aged about 28 years, wherein it is alleged that his friend Jasvir Singh @ Jassi, with whom he had talked to get him married, introduced him with Mohinder Kaur, who told him that she was acquainted with Amarjit Kaur, who is doing the work of matchmaking (matrimonial alliances). It is alleged that Amarjit Kaur took the complainant to Sonya wife of Paramjeet Singh, who agreed to look for a match for the complainant upon payment of an amount of Rs.60,000/-, which

¶14

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.01.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

( 2 ) CRM-M-34982-2020 (O&M)

¶16

was paid by the complainant to Sonya. It is alleged that on 01.06.2020 Sonya alongwith her husband Paramjit Singh (petitioner) got the complainant’s marriage solemnized with Gagandeep Kaur while representing that Gagandeep Kaur was an orphan. However, said Gagandeep Kaur after residing with the complainant for about 10 days, left his house while taking gold ornaments, silver ankles & other articles worth Rs.10,000/- as well as clothes worth Rs.20,000-25,000/-. Later, when the complainant went to Gagandeep Kaur’s house, she told him that her mother was to be operated upon and thus did not return back. Upon inquiries made by the complainant, he came to know that in fact Gagandeep Kaur was not an orphan and on previous occasions, she had solemnized two other marriages in an identical manner and in fact her real name was Sulekha Rani. It is further alleged that when complainant confronted Sonya, she threatened that in case the complainant wanted to save himself and enter into a compromise, then he should shell out an amount of Rs.2 lakhs failing which she would lodge an FIR against him alleging ill-treatment.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and even if the allegations as levelled in FIR are taken to be correct, he is merely a mediator and not a person who had actually committed fraud. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner in any case deserves bail on the ground of parity since co-accused Sonya, Rani and Kuldeep have already been granted bail.

¶18

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR, no case for grant of bail is made

¶19

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.01.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

( 3 ) CRM-M-34982-2020 (O&M)

¶21

out. The learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 3 months and 9 days.

¶22

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the role attributed to the petitioner, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as the conclusion of trial will take some time. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶24

7.1.2021

¶25

pankaj Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶26

( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) Judge

¶27

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.01.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit 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

Manpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ramanpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Irfan Vs State of Haryana

Khalil Ahmed Vs State of Haryana

Mahinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Nachhattar Singh @ Nachhattar Vs State of Punjab