Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjeet Singh@ Parmjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 August, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099281
CRM-M-36625-2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:099281
102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-36625-2024
Date of decision: 01.08.2024
Paramjeet Singh @ Paramjit Singh .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present :- Mr. Davinder Singh Khurana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner in case FIR No.0025 dated 10.06.2024, under Sections
408, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police
Station Amir Khas, District Fazilka (Punjab), during the pendency of the
trial. Further prayer has been made for staying the arrest of the petitioner
in the abovesaid FIR.
2. As per the facts of the case, the FIR was lodged by the Bharti
Kisan Union Ekta (Ugrahan) regarding cheating with the members of
farmers of Government Cooperative Society Village Chak Suvah Wala by
the Secretary Paramjeet Singh and Bank Manager Kamaljeet. It was
alleged that complainant-farmers had deposited their hard earned money
with the bank but Secretary Paramjeet Singh and Bank Manager
Kamaljeet had withdrawn the money deposited by them. They have been
cheated by both of them from the last 03 years by misguiding them. They
have been threatened as well by Secretary Paramjeet Singh and Bank
Manager Kamaljeet in case they lodged any complaint against them.
Request was made to take legal action against both the accused. The
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099281
CRM-M-36625-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:099281
misappropriated/embezzled amount was found to be Rs.37,43,928/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has submitted
that the petitioner was retired on 31.03.2023 after completing his service
satisfactorily. During his service period, there was no complaint
whatsoever regarding any embezzlement or malpractice committed by the
petitioner. However, after his retirement on the basis of false and
fabricated allegations, the FIR has been registered against the petitioner.
He submits that as per the Resolution dated 30.03.2023, it is evident that
the record and stock was inspected and no embezzlement as alleged was
reflected in the same. He has submitted that the Audit of the society was
conducted upto the year 2022-23 and no embezzlement was ever found by
the Audit Party. He has submitted that the amount could only be
withdrawn under the signatures of the Cooperative Society and the
petitioner being Secretary was not competent to withdraw the amount and
hence, he had no role to play in the alleged embezzlement. He thus,
submits that there being no prima facie case made against him, he
deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Heard. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing
the record, it is revealed that the FIR in the present case has been
registered after carrying out the enquiry by DSP Jalalabad who had
concluded that the amount of Rs.37,43,928/- was
misappropriated/embezzled from the society. The complainant-farmers
have specifically alleged of having deposited the amount in all their
fairness however, the same was found to have been withdrawn by the
petitioner along with the Manager. The preliminary enquiry conducted on
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099281
CRM-M-36625-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:099281
the complaint filed had found a heavy amount having been embezzled by
the accused in conspiracy with each other. It is hereinafter, the FIR was
registered and thus, fair and free investigation is required to be conducted
for the embezzled amount which is the public money. Granting
anticipatory bail to the petitioner would seriously hamper the ongoing
investigation.
5. 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
followingfactors, 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."
6. 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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099281
CRM-M-36625-2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:099281
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
"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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099281
CRM-M-36625-2024 -5- 2024:PHHC:099281
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.
7. 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
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.
8. Weighing the facts and circumstances of the present case on
the anvil of law settled, this Court is of the opinion that the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is very much essential to bring the truth on
record and as such, petitioner does not qualify for exercising the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099281
CRM-M-36625-2024 -6- 2024:PHHC:099281
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 )
01.08.2024 JUDGE
m. sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
