Rakhsha Rani vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 18894 P&H

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 18894 P&H
Judgement Date : 2 November, 2023

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rakhsha Rani vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 2023

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139800




                                                      2023:PHHC:139800
CRM-M-44138-2023                                              -1-


226
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
               CHANDIGARH
                                  CRM-M-44138-2023
                          Date of decision : 02.11.2023

RAKHSHA RANI
                                                                ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                               ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:     Mr. Aman Deep Saini, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

          Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
               ****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR

No.31 dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 420,

120-B IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional Act, 2014 and

Section 24 of Immigration Act at Police Station Division No.1, District

Pathankot.

2. The brief allegations as per the FIR are that the

complainant-Durgesh Joshi had paid a sum of Rs.4,05,100/- to the

accused including the petitioner to procure a job for him and his brother

in a foreign country. However, no such job was provided and the

received money was not returned.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the

petitioner along with her mother was working in the Jalandhar Office of

one person namely, Mark Christi who had his main office in Delhi. The

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139800

2023:PHHC:139800

petitioner had been wrongly stated to be the wife of the said main

accused Mark Christi. The petitioner had never approached the

complainant for providing any Visa to the said complainant and only her

bank account had been misused. As the petitioner was ready and willing

to join investigation, she was entitled to the concession of anticipatory

bail.

4. A status report dated 28.10.2023 by way of an affidavit of

Sumeer Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division

City, Pathankot has been filed on behalf of the State by the learned

counsel for the State. The same is taken on record. While referring to the

said reply, she contends that when the complainant had gone to

Jalandhar to the Office of the petitioner, he had met Mark Christi who

had stated that the petitioner was his wife and that he (complainant)

could accompany the petitioner to Ukraine Mark Christi had also given

an account number of the petitioner to the complainant where the

complainant had deposited money from time to time. Money had also

been deposited into the account of the petitioner's mother namely,

Sukhwinder Kaur. A sum of Rs.4,05,100/- had thus, been paid to the

petitioner and her co-accused on the pretext of providing a job to the

complainant abroad. The petitioner was also an accused in another case

bearing FIR No.95 dated 23.11.2017 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and

Section 24 of Immigration Act, 1983, Police Station Banga, District SBS

Nagar. She, therefore, contends that no case for the grant of anticipatory

bail was made out and the petition was liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139800

2023:PHHC:139800

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha

Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 held

that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself

could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the

foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to

consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract

of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.

Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139800

2023:PHHC:139800

alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.

7. Coming back to the facts of the present case, a perusal of

the FIR and the investigation conducted so far would clearly reveal that

the petitioner along with her mother and the main accused Mark Christi

who has called the petitioner his wife received a sum of Rs.4,05,100/- on

the pretext of procuring a job for the complainant in a foreign country.

However, no such job was provided. A perusal of the material on record

would show that the money has been paid into the bank account of the

petitioner and her mother. Therefore, the offence is prima facie

established against the petitioner. Even otherwise, she is a habitual

offender with one other case of a similar nature registered against her.

As the offence is prima facie established and the investigation is to be

taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the