Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankit vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 May, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062422
CRM-M-14949-2024 (O & M)
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(298)
CRM-M-14949-2024 (O & M)
Date of decision:06.05.2024
Ankit ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Mukesh Rao, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is
for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.326 dated
05.10.2023 under Sections 406, 420 IPC registered at Police Station City
Rewari, District Rewari.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Rohit
Saini and reads as under:-
"To the Superintendent of Police, Rewari Complaint
against the criminals about the crime of criminal conspiracy
and taking action against the gang in the name of getting a job
and embezzling Rs 13,80,000 from the public. Sir, the victim
submits as follows that 1. That the victim is an educated person.
He is a young man and has done BSC and MSC and he is
resident of Rewari. 2. That the accused No. 1-Ankit is a resident
of village Garhi Mahendragarh and is posted in DEPUTY
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062422
CRM-M-14949-2024 (O & M)
::2::
COMMISSIONER OFFICE JHAJJAR, Jhajjar and was known
to the victim and he often used to say that he has a whole group
which provides jobs to people and in this link he told me that
there is a post of SUB INSPECTOR in Haryana, which he told
that I will get the job by paying Rs.10,00,000 rupees, which I
transferred Rs.55000 rupees to his account and then he got my
form filled and then he gave 1 Gave Rs. 25,000 in cash but
when he asked for more money, I said that I will give the
remaining money when the offer letter comes. This incident
happened in December 2021. After that I asked several times.
He said that there is a ban on jobs right now. When the ban
opens, I will get it done immediately. 3. That in August,
Praveen, a resident of Rambas, brought the victim who said that
he wanted to get a job, which the victim introduced him to the
accused Ankit, who was also involved in this along with 2/3
other people in his office. That I will get a job in the Income Tax
Department in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, on 22-9-2022, Praveen
kept ten lakh rupees at my house and on 23.09.2022, accused
Ankit came and in front of Pankaj resident of Kankarwali
Rewari took Rs. 10 lacs and then accused Ankit and Sanjay
POSTED AT DC OFFICE In Jhajjar, Praveen was told that he
would be taken to Kanpur UP, in that regard, Arjun and Rahul
of Rohtak were also involved with him. The said accused Ankit
took Praveen to Kanpur and showed him to the INCOME TAX
OFFICE and said that he would get a job here, which was
There he got MOB NO. 8528051266, Vikas MOB 7376630692
Vikas MOB 9896553084 and another person MOB 8198966020
were also found. All of them said that part payment has come
and after receiving the remaining money, appointment letter
will be issued which Praveen was convinced that he is going to
get the job, then the accused named above given account of a
person named SANDEEP which was 30873135894, in which
Praveen had transferred Rs. 2,00,000 from SBI BANK PILOT
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062422
CRM-M-14949-2024 (O & M)
::3::
CHOK on 2-11-22 but till date neither he got the job nor the
money has been returned. Accused Ankit, Sanjay MOB
8708174652 Arjun, Rahul, Sumit, Vikas, Vikas, Sandeep etc. are
involved in a criminal conspiracy and they have also sent many
messages about getting jobs to them. Action should be taken
against the accused's gang which is spread on a large scale.
The investigation of the said case should be done directly by
SIT or CIA or DSP level officers so that such a big gang can be
exposed. The accused has cheated many people and many
officers are also involved with them, hence there are such
officers for investigation who are free from fear, it will be very
kind of sir, legal action should be taken ROHIT SAINI Sd/-
Rohit Saini, son of Ashok Saini, resident of Sati Colony, Rewari
Haryana MOB 9416592110".
3. During the course of investigation, the complainant produced
the screen shots of the mobile app showing transfer of money to the
petitioner alongwith Whatsapp chats. The bank details of the other accused
were obtained alongwith the call detail records.
4. The statements of Pankaj Kumar son of Luxmi Narain and
Parveen Kumar were also recorded to substantiate the allegations that a huge
amount of money had been paid in cash to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner was initially granted the concession of interim
bail on an undertaking being furnished by him that he would deposit a sum
of Rs.13,80,000/-. However, he backed out from his undertaking. Be that as
it may, the Court of Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide order dated 01.02.2024
(Annexure P-3) while granting him the concession of anticipatory bail
directed him to deposit a sum of Rs.13,80,000/- in the form of an FDR with
any nationalized bank/post office.
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062422
CRM-M-14949-2024 (O & M)
::4::
6. As the petitioner did not deposit the said amount, an application
was moved for cancellation of the bail granted to him vide order dated
01.02.2024 and his bail stood cancelled by the Court of Sessions Judge,
Rewari vide order dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-4).
7. Thereafter, the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail
came to be filed by the petitioner.
8. When this matter came up for hearing before this Court, the
same grounds as had been raised by the petitioner during the course of the
hearing of his anticipatory bail petition before the Sessions Court were
raised. The petitioner was directed to join the investigation. The matter was
adjourned to 23.04.2024 on which date, the petitioner sought an
adjournment by way of filing of an adjournment slip. When this matter
came up for hearing on 02.05.2024, an undertaking was given that a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- out of Rs.13,80,000/- would be deposited in the form of an FD
as mentioned in the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Court of Sessions
Judge, Rewari.
9. The case was adjourned to 06.05.2024.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- out of a sum of Rs.13,80,000/- already stands deposited but he
is unable to deposit the rest of the amount immediately. He contends that the
allegations levelled in the FIR baseless. In fact, the petitioner had only
availed a friendly loan of Rs.45,000/- and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was
demanded subsequently. The FIR in question had been registered after a
significant delay. The posts of Sub Inspector were advertised in the year
2021 and the last date for the submission of the Online application was
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062422
CRM-M-14949-2024 (O & M)
::5::
02.07.2021. Therefore, the prosecution version that the complainant was
induced to pay money in December 2021 was unbelievable. He, therefore,
contends that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of anticipatory
bail.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2, on
the other hand, while referring to his reply dated 21.04.2024 contends that
the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail was not maintainable.
The petitioner had been granted the concession of anticipatory bail on the
condition that he would deposit an FDR for a sum of Rs.13,80,000/- but he
did not deposit the same and an application was moved for cancellation of
his bail. The said bail granted vide order dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure P-3)
was cancelled by a subsequent order dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-4).
Instead of challenging the order of cancellation of bail, the petitioner had
preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail. Merely
because the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit a sum of
Rs.13,80,000/- in the form of an FDR would not be sufficient to grant him
the concession of anticipatory bail as the petitioner was a Government
servant, the offence was prima facie established from the statements of
witnesses, CDRs, bank details and Whatsapp chats and his custodial
interrogation was necessary to take the investigation to its logical
conclusion. Even otherwise, during the course of investigation, Sections
467 and 468 IPC had been added because forged letters of appointment had
been handed over by the petitioner and his co-accused to the complainant
party. He, therefore, contends that as the present petition was not
maintainable and the investigation was to be taken to its logical conclusion,
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062422
CRM-M-14949-2024 (O & M)
::6::
the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail was liable to be
rejected.
12. The learned counsel for the State while referring to the reply
dated 29.04.2024 contends that during the course of investigation, the
statements under Section 161 Cr.p.C. of Pankaj Kumar son of Luxmi Narain
and Parveen Kumar were recorded to the effect that a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-
had been paid to the petitioner for obtaining a job. The petitioner provided
an interview reporting letter/training letter of recruitment which was
apparently a forged one because of which Sections 467 and 468 IPC were
added in the present case. The contention of the petitioner that the
complainant had only given him a friendly loan was baseless as the
Whatsapp chats between the petitioner on the one hand and the complainant
on the other would show that the petitioner had admitted to have received a
substantial sum of money. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner was
required to ascertain the names and credentials of his co-accused. Even
otherwise, as the offence was prima facie made out and the investigation
was to be taken to its logical conclusion, the petitioner was not entitled to
the concession of anticipatory bail and the present petition was liable to be
dismissed.
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sumitha Pradeep
Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977', has 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
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062422
CRM-M-14949-2024 (O & M)
::7::
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 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
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062422
CRM-M-14949-2024 (O & M)
::8::
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."
15. An examination of the facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the record would reveal that the petitioner is working in the office of
the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar and therefore, he is a Government
servant. The allegations against him are of receiving a sum of
Rs.13,80,000/- from the complainant and another with a view to provide
them Government jobs. A number of accused named in the FIR are alleged
to be involved in the criminal conspiracy alongwith the petitioner. The
investigation conducted so far would show that the petitioner has accepted a
huge sum of money on the pretext of providing a job to the complainant and
others. Forged interview reporting letters/training letters of appointment
have also been provided by the petitioner to the complainant party for which
Sections 467/468 IPC have been added. Merely because the petitioner is
ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.13,80,000/- and had deposited a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- does not entitle him to the grant of anticipatory bail as
the offence is prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to
its logical conclusion. Even otherwise, in offences of the present kind, an
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062422
CRM-M-14949-2024 (O & M)
::9::
accused cannot claim anticipatory bail as a matter of right by pleading that
he is ready and willing to deposit the entire defalcated amount.
16. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.
Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
10. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this
order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial
Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence lead
before it uninfluenced by any such observations made.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
May 06, 2024
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
