JAGTAR SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail in case bearing RC No.3 (S) 2007/SCB/CHG dated 13.06.2007 under Sections 120-B, 363, 342, 302, 201 IPC (earlier FIR No.30 dated 05.02.2004 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur), registered at Police Station CBI, SCB, Chandigarh.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that initially, the FIR was registered by the Punjab Police and an inquiry was conducted, in which the petitioner was exonerated. Thereafter, an application for discharge was moved before the trial Court, in which he was discharged on 31.05.2005. It is further argued that thereafter, the petitioner travelled abroad and was working in Germany and in the meantime, CRM-14764-M-2007 was filed by complainant Balvir Kaur and this Court had directed CBI to investigate FIR No.30 dated 05.02.2004 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur. In the said FIR, Balvir Kaur has stated that on 31.01.2004, her daughter Amandeep Kaur had gone to the college for studies, but did not return back and she was trying to search her. Later on, she came to know that her daughter was fleeced by petitioner Jagtar Singh with intention to marry her, as he used to roam around her house. Thereafter, CBI investigated the case and filed the charge-sheet against co-accused Jarnail Singh, at the first instance and supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner on 21.07.2009.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that since the petitioner had travelled abroad in the month of September, 2006, the entire investigation was conducted in his absence and when co-accused Jarnail Singh faced the full length trial, complainant Balvir Kaur appeared as PW29 and one another witness Jasvir Singh appeared as PW31. The trial Court, with reference to the statements of these two witnesses, made the following observations: -