Salochna Sood vs State of Punjab and another

The instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail has been filed by petitioner Salochna Sood, an accused in FIR No.172 dated

11.10.2016, under Sections 406, 498-A, 494 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Rupnagar, District Rupnagar.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution story are that complainant Rajinder Kaur had submitted a written complaint addressed to

SSP, Rupnagar INTER ALIA contending that she was earlier married with one Manjit Singh but that marriage did not work and ended in a divorce

between the spouses in the year 2008; that thereafter, she started residing in the house of her father Mohinder Singh at House No.308-A-1, Sector 2,

Naya Nangal; that during that period Hitesh Kumar Sood son of present petitioner Salochna Sood contacted her in the year 2011 and offered to marry

her; that he did so in connivance with his brother and mother (Salochna Sood â€" present petitioner); that the marriage took place between the

complainant and Hitesh Sood, which was a simple affair; that after the marriage, both of them started residing together as husband and wife; that the

complainant has alleged that Hitesh Sood committed rape on her; that Hitesh Sood had promised her to take her to England stating that he would send

some documents from England and called her there, however, his mother told that business of Hitesh Sood was not in good condition, therefore some

money would be required and asked the complainant to arrange some money by selling her jewellery. According to the complainant, she handed over

all her gold ornaments to the mother of Hitesh Sood; that Hitesh Sood went abroad by selling the ornaments; that after two months mother of Hitesh

Sood i.e. present petitioner went to reside with her second son namely Ramesh Sood leaving the complainant alone. According to the complainant,

Salochna Sood had embezzled her ornaments worth Rs.2,50,000/-. She has further contended that in the written complaint that she came back to

reside with her parents at Nangal where Hitesh Sood would visit her and have sex with her; that when mother of Hitesh Sood returned from England

and complainant contacted her then she told her that she had no relation with her son Hitesh Sood and denied the marriage between two; that in the

year 2012 Hitesh Sood came from England and the complainant tried to contact him but he avoided doing so. However, Hitesh Sood took rented

accommodation for complainant at Kharar and he visited her there occasionally had sex with her promising to take her to England after completion of

formalities. According to the complainant, she had sent a sum of Rs.28 lakhs to Hitesh Sood as demanded by him; that later on she asked him to

return the amount but he returned some amount leaving a balance of Rs.20 lakhs. According to the complainant, she came to know that in the year

2014, Hitesh had visited India and got married with Jaswinder Kaur and then returned to England, though he was got arrested at airport on a complaint

having been filed by Sh.B.D. Kapoor. She sought taking of action against Hitesh Sood, his mother Salochna Sood and Ramesh Sood. After registration

of the FIR, the matter was investigated.

Apprehending her arrest in this case, petitioner accused had approached the Court of Sessions seeking grant of pre-arrest bail but her such application

was dismissed by the Court learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar vide order dated 1.11.2016. As such he has approached this Court asking for

similar relief.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

A perusal of the FIR goes to show that the main thrust of allegations is against Hitesh Sood. With regard to the present petitioner, mainly the

allegations are that as per her demand, the complainant had handed over her jewellery to her of the value of Rs.2,50,000/-, which she sold and gave

proceeds to her son Hitesh Sood. However, it is a talk of about 2011, whereas the FIR was lodged in 2016 i.e. after five years. Even otherwise,

according to the complainant, marriage between her and Hitesh Sood was a simple affair. If that was so, then it seems little bit improbable that after

some time mother of Hitesh Sood would ask the complainant to hand over her jewellery articles and she would do so meekly without asking any

question. Even if, it is taken that such allegations are correct then no recovery can possibly be effected from the petitioner since as per own version of

the complainant, she had sold the jewellery and sent Hitesh Sood abroad meeting the expenses out of those proceeds. In this case, there are several

questions, which require answers. The complainant is relying upon some photographs to show her marriage with Hitesh Sood. Only during the trial, it

can be found out whether it was a legal or valid marriage. In this case the petitioner has joined the investigation and has been released on interim bail.

The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not found to be essential, therefore, the petition has merit. The interim bail granted to the petitioner vide

order dated 22.12.2016 is made absolute, subject to the following conditions:

1) that she shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

2) that she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

3) that she shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and

4) they she surrender her passport before the Investigating Officer if she has got one otherwise to furnish affidavit in that regard.

The petition is allowed accordingly.