Hemant Suryanath Dubey vs State
2001 Latest Caselaw 1423 Del

ORDER

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This is a petition u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in the case FIR No. 878/2000 dated 8.12.2000, u/Ss. 255/256/258/259/260/120B IPC, P.S. Crime Cell, South District, Nehru Place, Kalkaji (hereinafter 'case in Delhi').

2. Prosecution allegations in brief are: on 8th December, 2000 one Prahlad Singh was caught red-handed while supplying counterfeit Government Stamps of foreign bills worth Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) to Ranbaxy Lab Limited. During the investigations fake stamps of Rs. 18,48,300/- were seized at his instance. He was arrested in the above-noted case. In the disclosure statement, he stated that he has been working for one Narinder Singh proprietor of M/s. +Blue Star Services and that the fake stamps were being supplied by Hemant Suryanath Dubey of Mumbai (petitioner). Narender Singh was also arrested. On interrogation he stated that he is the proprietor of M/s. Blue Star Services, which deals in the supply of Stamps pertaining to share transfer, foreign bills, insurance etc.; these stamps are supplied by petitioner, Hemant Suryanath Dubey, Subhash and one Rupali of Mumbai; he could point out their office at Mumbai. Consequently the investigation officer went to Mumbai on 18.12.2000, 17.1.2001, 17.2.2001 and 14.5.2001 in search of the petitioner but his office was found locked and he could not be traced. Ultimately, petitioner was arrested by the Crime Branch, P.S. Thane Nagar, on 23.5.2001 in the case FIR No. 131/2000 under the above noted Sections and fake stamps of different denominations were recovered from the petitioner as well as from the co-accused worth Rs. 11,94,828/- (Rupees eleven lacs ninety four thousand eight hundred and twenty eight only). He was arrested in four cases of Crime Branch Thane, Wagle Estate, Nasik and Muland (hereinafter 'case at Mumbai'). Despite request for production warrants in the case at Delhi, petitioner was related on bail in the case at Mumbai on 2.7.2001. Thereafter, petitioner applied for anticipatory bail before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in the Delhi case, which was declined. However, transitory anticipatory bail to the petitioner was granted on 3.7.2001. Thereafter, petitioner participated in the investigations on 10.7.2001 and 16.7.2001 in case at Delhi. Petitioner's application for grant of anticipatory bail was declined by Addl. Sessions Judge observing that he is required to be confronted with Prahlad Singh, regarding the account in the name of the petitioner in a bank in Delhi.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the proprietor of the firm M/s. Hemant Corporate Services which is engaged in the business as Stamp Vendor also; that Prahlad Singh and Narinder Singh had purchased genuine stamps from the petitioner, and he does not deal in fake stamp; that Prahlad Singh operated an account No. 117 in Corporation Bank, CGO Complex, New Delhi in the name of the petitioner and the account was introduced by Narinder Singh who is the proprietor of firm M/s. Blue Star and photograph of the Prahlad Singh was affixed in the bank records. He argued that petitioner was in Mumbai from 18th December, 2000 till 17th February, 2001 and had been attending his business and was never asked to participate in the investigations; petitioner was falsely involved in four cases in Mumbai and was granted bail in two cases and in other two cases he was discharged; that he has already suffered police custody for about 30 days. It was argued that the petitioner has already participated in the investigations, in the case at Delhi, therefore, he is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

5. Learned APP for the State has argued that the case pertains to recovery of huge stock of fake Government Stamps supplied by the petitioner from Mumbai to M/s. Blue Star Services in Delhi; there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner, who has been avoiding arrest and he could not be traced despite efforts on the dates noted above. Learned APP placing reliance upon recent Supreme Court decision in Muraleedharan Vs. State 2001 (2) Crimes 239 (SC) argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to unearth the conspiracy, to trace out the Press where these fake stamps used to print and to arrest accomplices of the petitioner.

6. Law with regard to grant of anticipatory bail is well settled by several authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court. In CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, , it was held:-

"In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger oft he person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases."

7. In another case State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu & Anr. , , while cancelling the anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court observed that when the accused is pitted against allegations involving well orchestrated conspiracy he should not have been granted anticipatory bail. In that case some Question Papers were allegedly leaked by the accused.

8. In this case Prahlad Singh was caught red-handed while supplying counterfeit Government stamps of foreign bills worth Rs. 1.0 lac to Ranbaxy Lab Ltd. At his instance, fake stamps of Rs. 18,48,300/- were recovered. He, in his disclosure statement, named the petitioner as the person, who had been supplying fake stamps to them. Thereafter, Narender Singh also, in his disclosure statement, named the petitioner as the supplier of the fake stamps. While they were in custody, petitioner was absconding and could not be located when the Investigating Officer went to Mumbai in connection with the investigations of the above case on 18th December, 2000, 17th January, 2001, 17th February, 2001 and 14th May, 2001. As per the petitioner's own showing, he was arrested by the Crime Branch of P.S. Thane Nagar on 23rd May, 2001 on the allegations of having been found in possession of fake stamps. As per the allegations, fake stamps worth Rs. 11,94,828/- were seized from the possession of the petitioner and worth Rs. 1,35,130/- from the possession of his co-accused George T. Hiwali. In view of this, prayer of investigating agency that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the conspiracy and to locate wherefrom he used to get these fake stamps printed, cannot be said to be unfounded. Mere fact that petitioner has participated in the investigation in this case for several days cannot by itself be a ground to deny his police custody remand in the case registered at Delhi. Rejecting similar contention, the Supreme Court in Dukhisham Benupani, Assistant Collector, Enforcement v. Arun Kumar Bajaria , 1998 SCC (Crl.) 261 had held:-

"The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that he made himself available for interrogation for several days after being armed with an order preventing his arrest is not of much relevance now because that is not an aspect which can be taken advantage of by the respondent in this case. Similarly, sick person is not enough to claim pre-arrest bail order. Hence we are not inclined to go into the dispute whether the respondent is suffering from any such health condition."

9. For the foregoing reasons, taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations and the magnitude of the offence, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is made out.

10. The petition is dismissed.