Ranjit Kaur Bhatti v. State of Punjab and another
Case Details
CRM-M-20539-2025 201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20539-2025 Date of Decision: 22.05.2025 Ranjit Kaur Bhatti ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:
Legal Reasoning
evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre- trial incarceration. 10. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, amount already returned and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre- trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 11. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. CONDITIONS: 12. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.26 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-20539-2025 concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 13. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 14. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 15. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 16. It is clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail condition, the State and/or the victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall be competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioner moves for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do so. 17. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail. Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.26 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-20539-2025 18. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 19. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 20. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Arguments
Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet K. Barnala, A.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Nikhil Thamman, Advocate and Mr. Sukhvir Singh, Advocate for the complainant. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 0016 19.03.2025 Shimlapuri, 420, 406, 120-B IPC Ludhiana 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that she has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from translated version of FIR, which reads as follows: “One complaint bearing no PGD-392478 complaint no 391988 dated 26.07.2024 and one complaint bearing no 396719/395989 dated 30/07.2024 and C no 1313/2-2 dated 25/11/2024 from sema singh son of Sukhdev singh r/o 1688/27/155-Street no 9-C, Chimney Road, Preet Nagar, Shimlapuri, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana mobile no 8360996806, 9617797055. Against smt Ranjit kaur bhatti wife of Sukhdev singh r/o 658/1, street no 20, Punjab mata nagar, Jawaddi road, Dugri, Gurinder kaur w/o Jaspreet Singh r/o Lakhmirwala, Jhunir, Mansa, Punjab, Sukhminder Singh area bank manager, Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.26 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-20539-2025 Punjab & Sindh Bank, Shimlapuri after conspiring with each other and giving false hope of job and taking amount of Rs 10 lakh 31 thousand for registration of case which is as follows to the police Commissionerate Ludhiana. For getting the job in Punjab & Sindh bank, the above named person had duped the honest and hard working person of Rs 10 lakhs. Now the said persons are neither returning the amount nor had got the job to the complainant. 1. Sulhdev singh bhatti retired police officer r/o 658/1, street no 20. Punjab mata nagar, jawaddi road, model town, Ludhiana, m no 98760-66338, 2. Ranjit kaur bhatti w/o Sukhdev singh bhatti retired police officer r/o 658/1, street no 20, Punjab mata nagar, jawaddi road, model town, Ludhiana, 98152-00756, 3. Gurinder kaur bank official, Punjab & Sindh bank wife of Jaspreet singh r/o Lakhmir wala, mansa, m no 80546-17704, 62834-79473. 4.) Sukhminder Singh area manager, Punjab & Sindh bank, Ludhiana, 75290-77040. Sir I sema singh son of Sukhdev singh r/o 1688/27/155-Street no 9-C, Chimney Road, Preet Nagar, Shimlapuri, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana and my complaint is as follows that above named persons namely Sukhdev singh bhatti and his wife Ranjit kaur bhatti are my maternal uncle and aunt and gurinder kaur is their close associate who is working in Punjab & Sindh bank and one area manager namely sukhminder singh is their close associate of all three persons. All these persons had taken Rs 10,00,000 from me for getting me job in Punjab & Sindh Bank and its been now around one and half year. All these persons neither got me job nor returned back my money. After 3-4 times panchayat got convened and thereafter Ranjit kaur bhatti and Gurinder haur gave me cheque worth Rs 5 lakhs each in which one choque was of IHDFC Bank and other was of kotak Mahindra bank (photocopies of cheque attached herewith). That 1 presented both the cheque in the bank which were returned back due to difference in signatures. That when I asked them about these cheques that both the cheques got failed. That you should take back these cheques and give back my money then they started giving me threats that I should keep quite, they are not going to return the amount, you should do whatever you want to do. Ranjit kaur bhatti stated that my husband is retired senior police official. They have got high links in the offices and they are not going to return back the amount. Therefore, request is to help me in saving my life and legal action be taken against the said persons from some senior higher official and justice be granted to me. If me or my family gets hurt then above mentioned persons will be responsible for the same. I shall be thankful to you. Note: bounced cheque and documents and my adhar card, and the details of amount they have taken are attached herewith. Sd/- sema singh son of Sukhdev singh.” 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.26 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and has referred to the reply. 2 CRM-M-20539-2025 6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply which read as follows: “(A) Role of the petitioner: (i) Petitioner received Rs. 7,80,000/- from the complainant, assured him of providing a job in Punjab & Sindh Bank. (ii) Later on, the petitioner entered into compromise with the complainant on 11.12.2024 and returned an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. However, the complainant failed to return the remaining amount, and the cheques issued by the petitioner in her favour were dishonoured. (iii) Petitioner has conspired with the co-accused and played a central role in cheating the complainant.” REASONING: 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a civil dispute and allegations are of duping Rs.10 lacs which they have already returned, subject to all just exceptions without conceding and admitting. 8. Counsel for the complainant submits that the compromise was entered for Rs.15 lacs, but he does not dispute that original amount was Rs.10 lacs. 9. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
Decision
stand disposed of. 22.05.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.26 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 5