HARVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 123, dated 26.11.2019, under Sections 354 , 506 , 341 , 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on a perusal of the FIR, it is evident that no offence is made out against the petitioner and the FIR has been lodged by the complainant only to satisfy her ego on account of a heated argument, which took place between a male member of her family and co-accused Baljot Singh on 11.11.2019 at 09:40 P.M. at a restaurant. It was vehemently contended that the CCTV footage of the incident lent further credence to the aforementioned fact. Not only this, the alleged incident happened on 11.11.2019, however, the FIR was registered only on 26.11.2019, which left no manner of doubt that a fabricated version had been brought forth by the complainant.

(3.) Per contra learned State counsel while vehemently opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner along with the co-accused was not only present at the place of occurrence, but all the accused had passed vulgar and abusive remarks against the daughter of the complainant at 'Haweli Restaurant' Jalandhar. Despite being asked by the complainant repeatedly to refrain from indulging in such indecent behaviour, they continued eve-teasing her daughter, so much so, co- accused Baljot Singh unhesitatingly gave out his name and address while declaring that 'she could do whatever she wanted'. It was thereafter, the complainant having been left with no other option, on seeing the plight of her young daughter crying, immediately reported to SSP, Kapurthala and SSP, Phagwara, through a whatsapp message about the incident in question. Hence, the State counsel submitted in the circumstances, it could not be said to be a case of concocted version, much less, a delayed FIR.