Punjab-Haryana High Court
Munish vs State Of Punjab on 15 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
208
CRM-M-50128-2022
Date of decision : 15.11.2022
Munish Petitioner
V/S
State of Punjab Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Present: Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, Asstt. A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sagar, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory
bail in case FIR No.199 dated 20.07.2022 registered under Sections
406, 420, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13
and 18 of the Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014 at
Police Station City Kharar, SAS Nagar.
The above-said FIR was registered on the complaint
moved by complainant-Gurpreet Singh alleging that accused-Raj
Kumar, Reena, Hukam Singh and Sudhir Kumar had cheated him for
huge amount of Rs.42,00,000/- on the pretext of sending his relative
Jaswinder Singh to USA.
Learned counsel for petitioner submit that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure
1 of 3
statements of other co-accused. The petitioner is not named in the FIR.
The petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences. The
complainant in connivance with the police has lodged the false and
frivolous case against the petitioner. Co-accused Reena @ Reena Devi
has already been granted concession of interim anticipatory bail by this
Court vide order dated 22.08.2022. Nothing is to be recovered from the
petitioner and his custodial interrogations is not required. The petitioner
is ready and willing to join the investigation.
On the other hand learned State counsel and learned
counsel for the complainant have opposed the present petition and
submit that the petitioner along with other co-accused has taken
Rs.42,00,000/- from the complainant for sending his relative to USA
but neither the relative of the complainant was sent to USA nor the
aforesaid amount was given back to the complainant. When the
complainant requested the petitioner and other co-accused to return the
aforesaid money, they refused to do so by threatening the complainant.
The petitioner is a habitual offender. He is also involved in case FIR
No.182 dated 05.03.2022 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the
IPC at Police Station Krishna Gate, Kurukshetra. Custodial
interrogations of the petitioner is required for thorough investigation of
the case and for recovery of amount of Rs.42,00,000/-.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
view that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The
recovery of hefty amount is yet to be effected. Moreover, his
2 of 3
antecedents are also not good as he is already involved in one other
case of similar nature.
It is settled proposition of law that power exercisable under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it
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.
Further, it is well settled that Article 21 of the Constitution
is not an absolute right and is subject to the procedure established by
law. The facts and circumstances involved in the present case, point
towards the complicity of the petitioner and thus custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is necessary and would not amount to the violation of
petitioner's right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Keeping in view the above facts as well as nature of the
offence, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory
bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
15.11.2022 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
