Sajanpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 17 26.04.2024 Police State Crime Police Sta!on, 420, 465, 467, 468, Police District Crime Wing, District 471 IPC SAS Nagar (Mohali)

¶1The pe!!oner incarcerated in the FIR cap!oned above had come up before this Court under Sec!on 483 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2In paragraph 20 of the bail pe!!on, the accused declares that she has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "5. That the brief facts of the case are that the complainant Parminder Singh and other vic-ms came in contact with the pe--oner Sajanpreet Kaur, who was employed at Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. The pe--oner Sajanpreet Kaur assured them of ge'ng government jobs in various departments at Guru Nanak Hospital, Amritsar. To which, the complainant Parminder Singh and other vic-ms fell into her trap and the pe--oner managed to illegally obtain all their documents and money in lieu of securing the government job at the said hospital.

¶6That the detail of the financial transac-ons made to the order/judgment. 1 accused/pe--oner Sajanpreet Kaur alongwith the co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Cheena by the complainant and other vic-ms in this regard is as follows:

(i) Parminder Singh son of Mukh-ar Singh-Rs. 1,00,000/-

(ii) Hartej Singh son of Harjinder Singh -Rs. 1,40,000/-

(iii) Bhupinder Singh son of Baldev Singh -Rs. 1,50,000/-

(iv) Pritpal Singh son of Satnam Singh -Rs. 1,20,000/-

(v) Gurpreet Singh son of Gurdev Singh -Rs. 1,20,000/-

(vi) Nirmal Singh son of Balkar Singh -Rs. 1,10,000/-

(vii) Gurdeep Singh @ Gurdev Singh son of Ravel Singh – Rs. 1,00,000/-

(viii) Manpreet Singh son of Surjeet Singh -Rs. 1,30,000/-

(ix) Surjeet Singh son of Nirmal Singh -Rs. 1,4 0,000/-

(x) Sukhjeet Singh son of Bakhshish Singh-Rs. 1,85,000/-

(xi) Rajwinder Kaur daughter of Bakhshish Singh Wife of Charanjit Singh-Rs. 50,000/-

(xii) Gurjeet Singh son of Shamsher Singh -Rs. 1,20,000/-

(xiii) Gurjeet Singh son of Bakhshish Singh - Rs. 1,85,000/-"

¶4The pe!!oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi!ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and her family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the reply, which read as follows: "The Role of the Pe--oner

¶7That it is submi?ed that the complainant Parminder Singh and other vic-ms were issued forged/fabricated appointment le?ers by the pe--oner and other documents in the name of Baba Farid University, Faridkot, Punjab in order to assure them of securing the government job at the Guru Nanak Hospital by the pe--oner Sajanpreet Kaur. However, on verifica-on, the complainant Parminder Singh and other vic-ms came to know about chea-ng has been commi?ed by the Pe--oner Sajanpreet Kaur with all of them. B. Evidence against the pe--oner

¶8That it is per-nent to men-on here that during the inves-ga-on, the above said appointment le?ers issued by the pe--oner Sajanpreet Kaur to order/judgment. 2 the complainant and other vic-ms were found to be forged as during inves-ga-on the same were got verified from the concerned ins-tu-on whereby it came to light that no such appointment le?ers were ever issued."

¶7There is sufficient primafacie evidence connec!ng the pe!!oner with the alleged crime. Thus, she is not en!tled to bail on merits.

¶8However, para 8 of the bail pe!!on reads as follows: "8. That the pe--oner is the mother of a 2.5-year-old daughter namely Mehnaaz Kaur who needs constant care and in urgent need of her mother. There is no one else at home to take care of the minor child, and this has placed the family in extreme hardship. The prolonged custody of the pe--oner is causing emo-onal and mental trauma to the minor child. A copy of Birth Cer-ficate and Aadhar Card of Mehnaaz Kaur are annexed as Annexure P-2."

¶9In Veena Yadav v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-30947-2024, decided on 27.09.2024, this Court observed, [14]. At the age of ten, a child enters early adolescence, a cri!cal phase of cogni!ve, emo!onal, and social development. During this forma!ve period, the child's psychological and physical needs change significantly, requiring constant guidance, emo!onal stability, and nurturing. The role of the mother is par!cularly pivotal at this juncture, as she provides not only the primary emo!onal support but also helps shape the child's evolving sense of iden!ty, security, and moral framework. The mother's presence is essen!al for fostering a stable environment and is cri!cal for naviga!ng the complexi!es of early adolescence, including emerging independence, social pressures, and the development of self-esteem. Given the sensi!ve nature of this stage, the absence of a mother's direct involvement could detrimentally affect the child's emo!onal resilience, adapta!on, and overall well-being. Thus, the grounds for gran!ng bail, especially keeping the current ground reali!es of the region in mind, outweigh the reasons to detain the pe!!oner, and the Court is exercising its judicial discre!on to grant the same.

¶10As per paragraph 13 of the bail pe!!on, the pe!!oner has been in custody since

01.08.2024. As per the custody cer!ficate dated 10.11.2024, the pe!!oner's total custody in this FIR is three months and seven days. Given the fact of the pe!!oner being mother of a young daughter, and the pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega!ons, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus!fiability of further pre-trial incarcera!on at this stage. order/judgment. 3

¶11Without commen!ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men!oned above, the pe!!oner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the !me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶12Given above, provided the pe!!oner is not required in any other case, the pe!!oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap!oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa!sfac!on of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep!ng the surety, the concerned Court must be sa!sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶13While furnishing a personal bond, the pe!!oner shall men!on the following personal iden!fica!on details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the aHes!ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶14This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms.

¶15The pe!!oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi!ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe!!oner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶16This bail is condi!onal, and the founda!onal condi!on is that if the pe!!oner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applica!on for cancella!on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶17Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶18A cer!fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe!!oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aHest it to be a true copy. If the aHes!ng officer wants to verify its authen!city, such an officer can also verify its authen!city and may download and use the downloaded copy for aHes!ng bonds. order/judgment. 4

¶19Petition allowed in terms men!oned above. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA)

25.11.2024 JUDGE Jyo!-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 11.11.2024 Pronounced on: 25.11.2024 Sajanpreet Kaur ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Ferry Sofat, Advocate for the pe!!oner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. ****