Judgment:
CRM No.M-21362 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-21362 of 2014 Date of Decision:30.06.2014 Yadwinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Amrik Singh Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Yadwinder Singh son of Satpal Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.34 dated 27.05.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar, Rajpura, District Patiala.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
3. Ex facie, the arguments of the learned counsel that, since the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant and the dispute is purely of a civil nature, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, are not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. Rani Seema 2014.07.01 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-21362 of 2014 2 4. As is evident from the record that, very direct and serious allegations of heinous offences are assigned that the petitioner has cheated the complainant and misappropriated her huge amount of Rs.25 lacs on the false promise and pretext of paying her double the amount. Sequelly, the false story of execution of alleged agreement to sell concocted by the petitioner was rightly disbelieved by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, by means of impugned order dated 06.06.2014(Annexure P-10), which in substance is as under:- “On the other hand, learned Addl. PP for the State took up the plea that the bail applicant has concocted a false story regarding agreement to sell. He has actually taken an amount of Rs.25 lac from the complainant on the pretext of doubling the amount and alluring and inducing the complainant on this score, he had taken the amount of Rs.25 lac from her which she paid through cheques but later when she asked for the return of the amount, he refused and a compromise was effected where the bail applicant gave three cheques to her but when the cheques were presented for encashment the bail applicant stopped the payment. It was the contention of the learned Addl.PP that the bail applicant had cheated the complainant and had refused to return the money taken from her. It was his contention that the recoveries are yet to be made and if granted the concession of bail, the bail applicant may frustrate the process of investigation and not cooperate with the same. Appreciating the contentions aforesaid and having gone through the police record, it is found that there is a dispute regarding Rs.25 lac between the complainant Supinderpal Kaur and her maternal cousin, the bail applicant Yadwinder Singh. The bail applicant pleads that there was an agreement to sell executed by his cousin Supinderpal Kaur and himself jointly but Supinderpal Kaur thereafter did not extend the date and it was alleged in a compromise that he would return the amount to Supinderpal Kaur which she has contributed towards earnest money and he had thereafter issued three cheques. These three cheques apparently as mentioned in the FIR were not encashed and were dishonoured as the bail applicant had stopped payment. Thereafter another compromise was effected but again the payment was stopped by the bail applicant. Rani Seema 2014.07.01 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-21362 of 2014 3 The previous conduct of the bail applicant hence shows that time and again, he has been trying to wriggle out of the compromises that were effected between the parties, he had made assurance to return the amounts and then stopped the payment with instructions to the bank. The allegations against the bail applicant Yadwinder Singh are of a grave nature involving a large amount of money. In my considered opinion, it is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail as recoveries are yet to be effected and the matter to be probed into, hence the bail application is accordingly dismissed. Police file be returned. This file be consigned to the record room.”. 5. Meaning thereby, the complainant paid the indicated amount to the petitioner through cheques. The receipt of impugned amount from the complainant was acknowledged by the petitioner and he issued cheques in lieu thereof, which were dishonoured. Not only that, the petitioner has refused to make the payment of the impugned amount to the complainant despite compromises.
6. Therefore, taking into consideration the serious allegations of heinous offences of cheating and misappropriation of huge amount of the complainant, to me, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is essential in this case. In case, the anticipatory bail is allowed to him, then the investigating agency would be deprived from recovering the impugned amount, case property and effective investigation. It will naturally adversely affect and weaken the case of the prosecution, which to my mind, is not legally permissible.
7. Above all, the anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine/course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. Moreover, the power under Section 438 Rani Seema 2014.07.01 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-21362 of 2014 4 Cr.PC is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. At the same time, it is now well-settled proposition of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby in this relevant connection.
8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. June 30, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.07.01 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh