Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajiv Kumar Mittal vs State Of Punjab on 8 June, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081808
CRM-M-29993-2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:081808
102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-29993-2023
Date of decision : 08.06.2023
Rajiv Kumar Mittal ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present :- Mr. Rishu Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of
anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.0027 dated 28.04.2023 under
Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station
Jhunir, District Mansa.
As per facts of the case, the police party headed by ASI
Baljinder Singh while on patrolling received a secret information that
Harjit Singh @ Manna was involved in buying pending loan tractors, cars
and other vehicles at very low price with intention to commit fraud. He
sold these vehicles at high price to innocent people by preparing forged
registration copies without receiving any NOC. It was informed that he
was running a gang in nexus with others. If barricading was done, he
could be arrested with these vehicles having forged documents. Finding
the information reliable, ruqa was sent and the case was registered
against Harjit Singh @ Manna. On registration of the formal FIR,
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081808
CRM-M-29993-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:081808
investigation commenced. During investigation, complicity of the
accused-petitioner Rajiv Kumar Mittal came to the surface and he was
also arrayed as an accused in this case. Apprehending arrest, the
petitioner approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mansa
praying for grant of anticipatory bail. However, after hearing counsel for
the parties, learned Sessions Judge declined the same vide her order dated
31.05.2023. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court
praying for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that
the petitioner is not even named in the FIR and he has been involved in
this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused which
is not even an admissible evidence. He has submitted that the secret
information received was qua the co-accused and not regarding the
petitioner. He has further submitted that neither there was any prima facie
case made out against the petitioner as alleged nor there was any case for
custodial interrogation and hence, learned Sessions Judge illegally
declined the bail filed by the petitioner and thus, petitioner be granted
anticipatory bail.
Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by
counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the complicity of the
petitioner has been duly established in the present case and that there is
strong prima facie case made out against the petitioner so far during the
investigation. He has submitted that the petitioner is member of the gang
which is carrying out a racket of selling the vehicles on the basis of
forged documents. He submits that the petitioner is facing prosecution in
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081808
CRM-M-29993-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:081808
the other similar cases as well.
Heard. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is apparent that the present FIR was lodged on the basis of
secret information received regarding co-accused Harjit Singh @ Manna.
During the interrogation of the co-accused, involvement of the petitioner
was unearth. As per the investigation conducted so far, it has been found
that Harjit Singh @ Manna used to get prepared fake registration
certificates from Rajiv Kumar Mittal i.e. the petitioner. Thus, the
petitioner prepares forged registration certificates of the vehicles and
thereafter, sells them to the innocent public. The investigation is at
threshold. The petitioner is said to be involved in the similar other cases
as well.
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
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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081808
CRM-M-29993-2023 -4- 2023:PHHC:081808
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 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081808
CRM-M-29993-2023 -5- 2023:PHHC:081808
"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 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081808
CRM-M-29993-2023 -6- 2023:PHHC:081808
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.
Weighing the facts and circumstances of the present case on the
anvil of law settled, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not
qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this Court in his favour.
Resultantly, the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
08.06.2023 JUDGE
m. sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081808
6 of 6
