The court considered the role and prolonged detention of the petitioner in a case involving fraudulent matrimonial alliances to grant regular bail.

JUDGMENT

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral) - The petitioner has filed this petition seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.128 dated 22.09.2020 at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala under Sections 384, 420, 506, 120-B IPC.

2. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Gurcharan Singh, aged about 28 years, wherein it is alleged that his friend Jasvir Singh @ Jassi, with whom he had talked to get him married, introduced him with Mohinder Kaur, who told him that she was acquainted with Amarjit Kaur, who is doing the work of matchmaking (matrimonial alliances). It is alleged that Amarjit Kaur took the complainant to Sonya wife of Paramjeet Singh, who agreed to look for a match for the complainant upon payment of an amount of Rs.60,000/-, which was paid by the complainant to Sonya. It is alleged that on 01.06.2020 Sonya alongwith her husband Paramjit Singh (petitioner) got the complainant's marriage solemnized with Gagandeep Kaur while representing that Gagandeep Kaur was an orphan. However, said Gagandeep Kaur after residing with the complainant for about 10 days, left his house while taking gold ornaments, silver ankles & other articles worth Rs. 10,000/- as well as clothes worth Rs. 20,000-25,000/-. Later, when the complainant went to Gagandeep Kaur's house, she told him that her mother was to be operated upon and thus did not return back. Upon inquiries made by the complainant, he came to know that in fact Gagandeep Kaur was not an orphan and on previous occasions, she had solemnized two other marriages in an identical manner and in fact her real name was Sulekha Rani. It is further alleged that when complainant confronted Sonya, she threatened that in case the complainant wanted to save himself and enter into a compromise, then he should shell out an amount of Rs.2 lakhs failing which she would lodge an FIR against him alleging ill-treatment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and even if the allegations as levelled in FIR are taken to be correct, he is merely a mediator and not a person who had actually committed fraud. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner in any case deserves bail on the ground of parity since co-accused Sonya, Rani and Kuldeep have already been granted bail.

4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR, no case for grant of bail is madeout. The learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 3 months and 9 days.

5. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the role attributed to the petitioner, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as the conclusion of trial will take some time. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.