SUKHBIR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second petition filed by the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail, the first one filed by her having been dismissed on 30.7.2014.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that in the month of January, 2013, the petitioner, alongwith her husband Satinderpal Singh @ Ladi, contacted the complainant and lured him to invest some money with them which they would return after doubling the same within two months. They also told the complainant that they would purchase gold for him at a cheaper rate. The complainant fell in the trap and after borrowing money from his relatives and friends, gave various sums of money to them at different times, totaling Rs. 1,00,00,000/ -. Out of the said amount, Rs.12,00,000/ - was given by the complainant to the petitioner after borrowing it from Harpreet Singh son of Surjit Singh and Rs.8,00,000/ - was given to the petitioner and her husband by Kashmir Singh and Sukhraj Singh while in the presence of the complainant and Iqbal Singh. Though the petitioner and her husband promised to return the amount by 5.12.2012, yet they did not stick to the promise. When the complainant alongwith others went to their house, they made them sit in the drawing room and fled from their house in a car.

(3.) WHEN the earlier petition had come up for hearing on 7.5.2014, learned counsel for the complainant had submitted that it was the petitioner, who had received the aforementioned amount of Rs.12,00,000/ - and Rs.8,00,000/ -. However, learned counsel for the petitioner after drawing the attention of the Court to the copy of the agreement to sell dated 23.1.2014 submitted that two days after the registration of the FIR, the husband of the petitioner sold his land alongwith the residential house in favour of the complainant (80% share) and Iqbal Singh and Tarsem Singh (10% share) for a total consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,000/ - which agreement bore the signature of the complainant. On the adjourned date, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for a short adjournment for obtaining instructions about paying of Rs. 20,00,000/ - to the complainant. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned and interim order was made to continue. Finally, the said petition came up for hearing on 30.7.2014 when learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was not in a position to pay the aforementioned amount to the complainant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had in all received an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/ - from the complainant which amount she wanted to return to the complainant but failed to do so, this Court declined to extend the concession of interim bail any further and, accordingly, dismissed the petition.