Sukhjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 22622 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 December, 2023

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165873




                                                       2023:PHHC:165873
CRM-M-57554-2023 (O&M)                                            1

101

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH


                                            CRM-M-57554-2023 (O&M)
                                            Date of decision : 27.12.2023

Sukhjinder Singh                                            .....Petitioner

                                 versus


State of Punjab                                               ..... Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present :-   Mr. Gurpal Singh Kahlon, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Siddharth Attri, A.A.G., Punjab.

             Ms. Bhupinder Kaur, Advocate
             for the complainant.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

CRM-M-47948-2023

Allowed as prayed for.

CRM-M-57554-2023

Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for

grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.75 dated

29.07.2023 under Sections 420 IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel

Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station Sadar

Nawanshahr (District SBS Nagar) Annexure P-1.

Adumbrated facts of the case are that the present FIR has

been lodged on the statement of complainant, namely, Balvir Singh. It

has been alleged by the complainant that on 28.04.2023 he filed a

complaint against Sukhjinder Singh and his wife Paramjeet Kaur for

1 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165873

2023:PHHC:165873

cheating him on the pretext of sending his son abroad. He alleged that the

said complaint was marked to the D.S.P. Women Cell but Sukhjinder

Singh by taking him in confidence had given one affidavit of his near one

Kulwinder Singh and had also given four cheques drawn on Punjab

National Bank as security. Hence, he closed his first file on the ground

that talks of compromise were going on between them. However, said

Sukhjinder Singh had taken from him the passport of his son for

stamping Visa. Sukhjinder Singh was demanding Rs.25 lacs more from

him for returning his passport. It was requested that the action be taken

against culprits i.e. Sukhjinder Singh, his wife Paramjeet Kaur and

witness Kulwinder Singh. On the registration of this FIR, the

investigation commenced. Accused-petitioner Sukhjinder Singh

apprehending arrest approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar for grant of anticipatory bail.

However, after hearing both the sides, learned Additional Sessions Judge,

declined the same vide his order dated 08.09.2023. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of

anticipatory bail by way of filing the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended

that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has

submitted that the petitioner is not an agent rather he is doing job of Tele-

caller at a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month with The Emigrant Group

having their Head office at SCF No.1, Ist Floor, Cinema Road, New

Grain Market, Mullanpur Mandi, District Ludhiana since 07.02.2018. He

has submitted that the complainant had taken the service of Emigrant

Group and at that time the petitioner was working as an employee with

2 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165873

2023:PHHC:165873

the said group. He has submitted that after the death of the Managing

Director of the Emigrant Group, under whom the petitioner was

employed, the complainant started blackmailing the petitioner and on the

basis of same, he had filed a false and frivolous FIR against him. He has

stated that the complainant and his son have also filed the affidavit

wherein they had stated that all the issues between them have been

resolved and they will not pursue any civil or criminal litigation against

the petitioner. It is stated that son of the complainant himself with his

consent had sent his passport to Dakshish Shah Company with whom the

petitioner has no concern. He submits that the alleged payment made by

the complainant was sent by the petitioner to Aliasgar Tinwala and

nothing has been kept by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has

taken no money from the complainant as alleged and thus, he has no

complicity in the case as alleged by the complainant. He has submitted

that neither the passport of son of the complainant is with the petitioner

nor any money paid by him is retained by the petitioner. It is stated that

the false implication of the petitioner is writ large. He submits that no

case for the custodial interrogation is made out and thus, the petitioner

deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently

opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She has

submitted that the petitioner and his wife had cheated the complainant by

fraudulently taking about Rs.20 lacs from the complainant on the premise

of sending his son abroad. She submits that the passport of son of the

complainant was taken by the petitioner on the pretext of stamping visa

and till date the same has not been returned. She submits that neither the

3 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165873

2023:PHHC:165873

son of the complainant was sent abroad nor money taken from him was

returned by the petitioner. She has submitted that the complainant paid

about Rs.20 lacs to the petitioner as security and the petitioner issued

four cheques of Punjab National Bank to the complainant. She has

submitted that once the complainant found himself cheated he presented

the cheques issued by the petitioner to the Bank and all the four cheques

were dishonoured. She has submitted that the complainant has now filed

the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in

the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, SBS Nagar which are pending

adjudication. She submits that the contention raised by the counsel for

the petitioner that he was only an employee of the Emigrant Group is

only an excuse to wriggle out of the case instituted against him. She has

submitted that the petitioner by withholding the passport of the son of

the complainant is blackmailing the complainant to pay Rs.25 lacs more.

She submits that no case for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner

is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case and hence the

petitioner's petition deserves to be dismissed.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted

that the petitioner has cheated the complainant in a well planned

conspiracy. He submits that the petitioner has taken hefty amount from

the complainant by playing fraud. He submits that neither son of the

petitioner has been sent abroad nor the passport taken by him is returned

to the son of complainant. He has submitted that the petitioner is a

habitual offender. It is submitted that none of the accused could be

arrested till date. The passport and the money paid is also not recovered.

4 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165873

2023:PHHC:165873

He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. He further submits

that in the overall facts and circumstances, no case for grant of

anticipatory bail is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Heard.

From the facts and circumstances of the case, it emerges that

the complainant has alleged that the petitioner on the pretext of sending

his son abroad has taken about Rs.20 lacs from him. The money was paid

and the passport of his son was also given to the petitioner. The petitioner

issued four cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank. Thereupon, neither

the son of the petitioner was sent abroad nor the money was returned.

The passport allegedly given to the petitioner is also not returned.

Though the petitioner has submitted that the passport was sent by the

complainant by courier and the same is not in his custody. However, it is

improbable that the visa could be provided by the petitioner without the

passport. The case in hand is full of allegations and counter allegations.

The matter requires a free and fair investigation. The investigating

agencies so far have not been able to arrest any of the accused, thus, this

Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is

required in the present case and as such he is not entitled for the grant of

anticipatory bail.

For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory

parameters are given under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-

"Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:-

(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of

5 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165873

2023:PHHC:165873

such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:-

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and

(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, Either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail."

As per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, while

granting anticipatory bail, the Court is to maintain a balance between the

individual liberty and the interest of society. However, the interest of the

society would also prevail upon the right of personal liberty. The relevant

part of the judgment is as follows:-

31.In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed

6 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165873

2023:PHHC:165873

accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the state" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622, which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997)

7SCC 187, held as under:-

6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-

oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected

7 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165873

2023:PHHC:165873

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 of the 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. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances, the

petitioner fails to qualify for the grant of anticipatory bail on the anvil of the

law settled.

Resultantly, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

                                                   ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
27.12.2023                                               JUDGE
ps-I

Whether speaking/reasoned          :            Yes/No
Whether reportable                 :            Yes/No




                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165873

                                       8 of 8