Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1172 (PNJ)

Charanjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2020-05-21

ALKA SARIN

body2020
JUDGMENT Alka Sarin, J. - Heard through Video Conferencing. 2. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) in FIR No.53 dated 11.02.2020 under Sections 354, 354A, 354C, 354D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) registered at Police Station City Faridkot. The FIR was registered on the statement of one Manpreet Kaur (complainant) daughter of Jaswinder Singh resident of Mohalla Khokran Wala, near Mahi Khana Gurudwara Faridkot, who stated as under:- 'Today (11.02.2020), at about 8.30 PM when I along with my mother Paramjit Kaur were going from Gurudwara to the outer road, then Charanjit Singh son of Makhan Singh who is our neighbourer, was sitting on the bench of Karyana Shop and was alone. After seeing us, the above said Charanjit Singh by using a phone in his ear stated that there is no shortage of photos, photos are enough and again stated that I will not spare Manpreet Kaur. We went straightway and stated nothing and when we came back then Charanjit Singh scattered my photos in the street and used filthy language upon us and also stated that case has to be registered, inspite of this he used to follow me and committed wrong activities and also followed me while I used to go to college and by writing my name and number used to fix posters on the walls and trees. He also defamed me everywhere and stated that I will neither spare you nor you will be engaged. I am very embarrassed from him.' 3. The petitioner admittedly was convicted for the same offence vide judgment and conviction order dated 06.01.2020. In appeal, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended. Immediately thereafter, the present FIR was lodged. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is civil litigation pending between the parties. 5. On the asking of the Court, Ms. In appeal, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended. Immediately thereafter, the present FIR was lodged. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is civil litigation pending between the parties. 5. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Rashmi Attri, AAG, Punjab, has joined the session through Video Conferencing and has stated on instructions that earlier also, the petitioner was convicted for the same offence vide judgment and conviction order dated 06.01.2020 and immediately on being released from jail, when his sentence was suspended in appeal, he committed the present offence and the present FIR was lodged against him. 6. Counsel for the complainant has also put in appearance via video conferencing and has submitted that the petitioner had earlier also been convicted for the same offence and on his release from jail, on his sentence being suspended he had committed the same offence. He further stated that if the petitioner is released on bail he is likely to harass the complainant and commit the offence again. He further stated that the complainant fears for her life. 7. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to grant regular bail to the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner who was earlier convicted for the same offence immediately on his release from jail on suspension of his sentence again committed the same offence. This is nothing but sheer misuse of the concession granted to him by the Court while suspending his sentence. 8. Any observation made above shall not be construed as an opinion of the Court on the merits of the case. 9. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.