BALJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALJIT Kaur and her father-in-law Balbir Singh have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.32 dated 08.03.2013 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Shimlapuri, District Ludhiana. However, at the time of motion hearing on 29.04.2013, the instant petition qua petitioner No.2-Balbir Singh was dismissed as withdrawn and notice of motion has been issued qua petitioner No.1 only.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to prosecution version, petitioner no.1 and her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law duped several persons from the public by getting deposits in their company worth more than one crore. One victim had deposited Rs.23,00,000/-. The petitioners and their co-accused are said to have duped the depositors.

(3.) COUNSEL for the complainant pointed out that petitioner No.1 was also working as post-office agent and therefore, cannot be said to be house wife only. It was also pointed out that many of the victims of the fraud are clients of petitioner No.1 as post office agent. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Manjit Singh husband of petitioner No.1 has already been arrested and granted regular bail. However, this circumstances has no bearing qua claim of petitioner No.1 for anticipatory bail.