Delhi High Court
Neelam vs State on 23 December, 2009
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2470/2009
NEELAM ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.R.S.Soni, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr.R.N.Vats, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 23.12.2009
Crl.M.A.15007/2009 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.A.15007/2009 stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 2470/2009
A perusal of the report filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate as
well as a perusal of the report filed by the Additional Sessions Judge, a
copy of which has been placed by the petitioner herself, would show that
the petitioner who was known to the wife of Shri Chand Kumar instigated
them to apply for old age pension which is given to the persons living
below the poverty line. They handed over the copies of genuine ration
card to the petitioners along with two photographs. The Report further
shows that a sum of Rs.4,500/- was paid to the petitioner by Mr.Chand
BAIL APPLN. 2470/2009 page 1 of 3
Kumar on 20.7.2009, after he had withdrawn Rs.5,000/- from his
account with Punjab National Bank. The deal was struck in the
presence of his wife, his sister-in-law, and a neighbour Mr.Atul Tripathi, a
journalist by profession. All these persons have been examined during
investigation and they have corroborated the version given by
Mr.Pandey. In these circumstances, the investigating agency wants
custodial investigation of the petitioner in order to unearthed the
conspiracy pursuant to which documents were forged and pension
meant for persons living below poverty line was sanctioned. The
suspicion of the investigating agency is that there was a nexus between
the petitioners and some officials of Social Welfare Department,
pursuant to which the pension was sanctioned on the basis of forged
documents.
In Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1985 SC 969, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"Relevant considerations governing the court's
decision in granting anticipatory bail under
Section 438 are materially different from those
when an application for bail by a person who is
arrested in the course of investigation as also by
a person who is convicted and his appeal is
pending before the higher court and bail is
sought during the pendency of the appeal.
These situations in which the question of
granting or refusing to grant bail would arise,
materially and substantially differ from each
other and the relevant considerations on which
BAIL APPLN. 2470/2009 page 2 of 3
the courts would exercise its discretion, one
way or the other, are substantially different
from each other."
In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. B.K.Kundu, JT 1997 (8) SC
382, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the accused is pitted
against allegations involving a well orchrastred conspiracy, he should
not have been granted anticipatory bail. In CBI vs. Anil Sharma, JT
1997 (7) SC 651, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the effective
investigation of the suspect is of tremendous advantage in disinterring
useful information and also the material which would have been
concealed. It was further observed that the success in such
interrogation would elude if the suspect persons knows that he is well
insulated and protected by the pre-arrest bail order, during the time he
is interrogated and very often interrogation in such a condition would be
reduced to a ritual.
Since custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, in
order to ascertain how and where documents in question were forged
and to find out whether there was any nexus between her and the
officials of the Social Welfare Department, it would not be appropriate to
grant anticipatory bail to petitioner at this stage.
Dismissed.
V.K. JAIN,J
DECEMBER 23, 2009
BAIL APPLN. 2470/2009 page 3 of 3
