Nishant Kumar vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 14073 P&H

105



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH



                                          CRM-M-51567-2022
                                          Date of Decision: 10.11.2022



Nishant Kumar                                              ...Petitioner

                            Versus
State of Punjab                                            ...Respondent



CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

Present:       Mr.Satnam Singh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

               Mr.G.S.Sandhu, DAG, Punjab.



ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court by filing this

petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in

case FIR No.169 dated 08.09.2022 under Sections 408/506 of IPC

registered at Police Station City, Phagwara, District Kapurthala.

The present FIR has been registered on the allegations that

the petitioner was working in the complainant's finance company for the

last 5-6 years. The said company has given money to different customers

on finance and the petitioner used to collect installments from the said

customers but he was not giving them any receipt. As such the petitioner

is alleged to have cheated the company by collecting instalments

amounting to about Rs.3,00000 from 20/25 different customers and had

failed to deposit the same in the said company.

                              1 of 3

 CRM-M-51567-2022                                           :2:

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that

the petitioner has never worked with the aforesaid company. He was not

even an employee of the said company. There was no direct or indirect

evidence against the petitioner to connect the petitioner with the

commission of the alleged crime. Learned counsel submits that nothing

is to be recovered from the petitioner and as such his custodial

interrogation is not necessary. He is already ready and willing to join the

investigation.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of this Court, Mr. GS Sandhu, DAG, Punjab

accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He opposes the grant

of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has

cheated not only the finance company but public at large and hefty

amount is yet to be recovered from the petitioner and as such his

custodial interrogation is necessary.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the

view that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he

cheated not only the finance company but also public at large by

collecting installments amounting to about Rs.3,00000/- from different

customers and he failed to deposit the same in the company. The

allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature. Moreover, the

investigation is still going on, and therefore, his custodial interrogation

is necessary for finding out the modus operandi of commission of the

offence. It is settled proposition of law that power exercisable under

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it

2 of 3

CRM-M-51567-2022 :3:

is to be exercised in exceptional cases. This view of mine finds support

from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Vs.

Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171.

In view of the discussion made above, the present petition

being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be

construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                    (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
                                            JUDGE
10.11.2022
MFK
             Whether speaking/reasoned                   Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                          Yes/No




                           3 of 3