Allowed

Manpreet Singh Alias Money v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2023CRM-M/2403/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special bail petition, the High Court relied on Bharat Inder Singh Chahal to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner who apprehended false implication. The court directed respondents to issue mandatory Section 160 Cr.P.C. notice before summoning the petitioner if no other FIR exists.

What did the court decide?

Special bail granted pursuant to Sections 482 and 438 Cr.P.C. Respondents directed to issue Section 160 Cr.P.C. notice before calling the petitioner.

Manpreet Singh Alias Money Vs State of Punjab and… — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:124125

¶2

CRM-M-2403-2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

206 CRM-M-2403-2023

¶5

Date of decision: 20.09.2023

¶6

Manpreet Singh alias Money ....Petitioner

¶7

V/s

¶8

State of Punjab and others ....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶10

Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh Bains, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

¶12

¶13

ARUN MONGA, J. (Oral)

¶14

Petition herein is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioner. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench of this Court in case titled Bharat Inder Singh Chahal vs. State of Punjab¹ , contending that there is genuine apprehension of implication of the petitioner at the instance of respondent Nos.6 to 13 in a false criminal case.

¶15

It is averred that Bathinda Police in connivance with the police of nearby districts are making endeavors to implicate the petitioner and his family members in a false case and pressurize the petitioner to make the rape victimcomplainant (to be referred as ‘X’) withdraw her complaint against ASI Gurvinder Singh-respondent No.6, who is an accused in an FIR No.68 dated 12.05.2021 under Section 376 IPC registered at Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda.

¶16

2.1. Earlier ‘X’ and other witness Bhola Singh in FIR 68 ibid had filed petition apprehending false implication vide CRM-M-21193-2021 which was

¶17

12007(3) RCR (Criminal) 977

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

AJAY KUMAR 2023.10.04 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶20

2023:PHHC:124125

¶21

CRM-M-2403-2023

¶22

disposed of vide order dated 02.12.2021 (Annexure P-4) with the direction that she was not required in any case and in case need so arises, seven days clear notice would be given to her. ‘X’ had also moved an application before learned trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon four other police officials in the trial under Section 376 IPC and the said application is still pending. Petitioner is son of ‘X’ and, has every apprehension that a false case may be registered against him. Representations dated 29.12.2022 (Annexures P-6 and P-8) were also submitted to the higher police officers, but to no avail.

¶23

Learned State counsel refers to status report dated 25.04.2023, already on record, and submits that ‘X’ had also filed a petition i.e. CRM-M20759-2021 before this Court seeking transfer of investigation of FIR No.40, dated 06.05.2021 registered against the petitioner to an independent agency headed by a woman IPS Officer and for issuance of direction to Investigating Officer of the case to cancel the FIR registered against the petitioner. An SIT headed by Ms. Gurpreet Deo, serving then as Additional Director General of Police, Punjab was constituted to investigate the case in FIR No. 40 ibid. Vide an order dated 02.12.2021, said petition was subsequently disposed of with liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law for redressal of surviving grievance, if any. 4. Petitioner has been granted the concession of bail in the FIR ibid i.e., FIR No. 40 dated 06.05.2021.

¶24

Counsel for petitioner further submits that except the above said FIR No.40, no other application/complaint or any other FIR is pending against petitioner in any Police Station in District Bathinda.

¶25

On a Court query, counsel for State, on instructions from HC Jagdip Singh, submits that respondent No.3 would comply with the mandatory provisions of Cr.P.C., including Section 160 thereof, before calling petitioner, in case the petitioner is required as a witness in any other case.

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

AJAY KUMAR 2023.10.04 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶28

2023:PHHC:124125

¶29

CRM-M-2403-2023

¶30

In the premise, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to issue a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in writing before calling the petitioner for any enquiry, in case there is no other FIR registered against the petitioner.

¶31

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶32

(ARUN MONGA) JUDGE

¶33

September 20, 2023 Ajay

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶35

Page 3 of 3

¶36

AJAY KUMAR 2023.10.04 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Manpreet Singh Alias Money v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Singh Alias Money v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Saddam Vs State of Haryana

Prabhleen Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Manpreet Singh Alias Mannu Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mohammad Ibrahim & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.