Raju Singh vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 15938 P&H

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                                                Sr. No.202

                                 Case No. : CRM-M-53106-2022
                                 Date of Decision : December 06, 2022

             Raju Singh                    ....   Petitioner
                                 vs.
             State of Punjab               ....   Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.

                          *    * *
Present :    Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab.

                          *    * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :

This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., filed by the

petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.137 dated 16.09.2022

(Annexure P-1), under Sections 323, 384, 506, 120-B IPC (Sections 380 and

457 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District

Barnala.

Vide order dated 17.11.2022, passed by this Court, Status

Report by way of affidavit of Satvir Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Sub Division Barnala, has been filed in Court today, which is

ordered to be taken on record.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

case file.

                          CRM-M-53106-2022                          : 2 :

                                       1 of 4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case as no specific role is attributed

to the petitioner. The complainant has taken money from the co-accused

Paramjeet Kaur and now, he has cooked the story of alleged

incident/offence to escape the liability towards the co-accused. He is not

even named in the FIR. Still, he is ready to join investigation as and when

required. It has also been apprised to this Court that two co-accused of the

petitioner have been granted regular bail by the Court of learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Barnala.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the bail

petition submitting that the allegations involved in this case are serious in

nature and granting concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner may

hamper the investigation.

A bare perusal of the record in this case reveals that the

petitioner, in connivance with his other co-accused, entered into criminal

conspiracy to extort money worth Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant and

on 12.09.2022, called him for match-making of his maternal aunt's son. Co-

accused Gurmail Singh and Paramjeet Kaur took him to some unknown

girl's house, where a girl aged about 30 years was present. The petitioner

came and started beating the complainant saying that he had done wrong

with his wife. Clothes of the complainant were forcibly removed and

obscene video of the complainant was prepared. Thereafter, they started

blackmailing the complainant demanding an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from

CRM-M-53106-2022 : 3 :

2 of 4

him and threatening him of teaching a lesson to him if he talked with

anyone regarding the said incident. On the request of being poor person by

the complainant, the accused persons agreed to accept an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-. The accused persons also got executed a pronote from him

as a security of the said amount. The phone of the petitioner, through which

obscene video of the complainant was prepared, is yet to be recovered.

The name of one Rajveer Singh was included in the FIR in

question, later on he was identified as the petitioner and photograph of the

petitioner is also there on the pronote. Moreover, it has been submitted in

the Status Report filed today in Court that co-accused Prabhjot Kaur @

Gagan disclosed that name of Rajvir Singh was wrongly mentioned in the

pronote got executed from the complainant, whereas actually, it was the

petitioner who, under a well-planned conspiracy to extort money from the

complainant, committed the crime.

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, the offence

seems to be very serious. The mobile phone, with which obscene video of

the complainant was made, is yet to be recovered. The act of the accused is

so daring that they got executed a pronote from the complainant as security

for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was the result of

blackmailing and attempt to extort. Two criminal cases under the Punjab

Excise Act are already registered against the petitioner. The custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. In such cases, if a person is

equipped with an order of anticipatory bail, interrogation becomes a mere

ritual. This view of mine finds support from a judgment passed in the case

CRM-M-53106-2022 : 4 :

3 of 4

of State represented by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma reported as 1997

(7) SCC 187 wherein it has been specifically held that :-

"...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."

Accordingly, keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the

fact that recovery of mobile phone is yet to be effected, no ground for grant

of anticipatory bail is made out.

Dismissed.

However, nothing contained herein above shall be construed as

an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

December 06, 2022                                         (GURBIR SINGH)
monika                                                        JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned ?            Yes/No.
             Whether reportable ?                   Yes/No.




                                        4 of 4