Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1871 (PNJ)

Narinder Kaur @ Maninder Kaur v. State of Punjab

2021-12-02

AMOL RATTAN SINGH

body2021
Judgment Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, J. :-CRM-40496-2021; Vide this application advancement of the date of hearing in the accompanying petition is sought, with learned counsel submitting that the turn of the case has not come up twice with the matter now standing adjourned for hearing to 11.01.2022, and with the petitioner having been in custody for more than five months, with her not being at fault in any manner as is obvious from a reading of the FIR. 2. Notice in the application. 3. Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State at the asking of the Court, with Mr. Nitin Vashisht, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant and accepting notice. 4. For the reasons stated immediately hereinafter in the order disposing of the petition itself, the application is allowed. The date of hearing in the accompanying petition is advanced to today itself. Main Case 5. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the concession of ‘regular bail’ under the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C., upon FIR No.0196, dated 04.08.2021, having been registered at Police Station Division No.6, Police Commissionerate Ludhiana, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 420, 408, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never having been named in the FIR, her name has been wholly falsely roped in just because she is the mother of the prime accused, Jasvir Singh. 7. Learned State counsel submits that as per his instructions, in fact Rs.17,624/- were transferred by Jasvir Singh to the account of the petitioner, i.e. his mother, and that Jasvir Singh and his other co-accused have ‘played a huge fraud’ of Rs.55 lacs; and therefore, she should not be admitted to bail. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterates the above. 9. However, looking at the fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the only allegation against her is that her son transferred Rs.17,624/- to her account, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, this petition is allowed, with the petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail, upon her furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.