Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 30 September, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130579
CRM-M No.2097 of 2024 (O&M) -1-
212
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.2097 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.09.2024
Randhir Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Naveen Kumar Mehra, Advocate and
Mr. Prabhjot Singh Mann, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
CRM-17984-2024
Allowed as prayed for.
CRM-M No.2097 of 2024
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in
case FIR No.172, dated 25.03.2023 (Annexure P-1), under Sections
120-B, 406, 420 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station City
Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. Further prayer has been made for
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130579
granting the ad-interim bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the
present petition.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the complainants,
namely, Yashpal, Suraj Kumar, Satbir lodged the complaint wherein it
was alleged that Tarsem resident of Ratta Khera was known to Satbir.
Tarsem told them that his friends, namely, Tinku Garg, Naveen Saini,
Randhir @ Dheera (petitioner) and Abhishek have contacts in Haryana
Staff Selection Commission and they can get their children employed
in the Government service. On their saying, they requested these
people for providing jobs to their friends and relatives. Rs.16,00,000/-
was given by the complainants to these people. Later on another
amount was also given and thus, Tinku Garg and Naveen Saini
received Rs.20,00,000/- in their office in Kaithal. However, neither the
money was returned nor any job as promised to them was provided to
their relatives. On realizing that they have been cheated, they lodged
this complaint for taking the legal action against these culprits. On the
basis of this complaint, the FIR was registered and the investigation
commenced. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner approached the
Court of learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad praying for the grant of
anticipatory bail. However on hearing both the sides, the learned
Sessions Judge, Fatehabad finding no merit, dismissed the same vide
his order dated 11.12.2023. Hence being aggrieved the petitioner is
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130579
before this Court by way of filing the present petition for the grant of
anticipatory bail.
3. This Court vide order dated 18.01.2024 granted the
interim bail to the petitioner subject to the conditions as envisaged
under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in
pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 18.01.2024, the
petitioner has already joined the investigation.
5. However learned counsel for the State, on instructions has
vehemently opposed the interim bail granted to the petitioner. He has
submitted that the petitioner has played a very active role in
connivance with the co-accused in cheating the complainants. He has
submitted that on the registration of FIR, the petitioner as well as
Abhishek, Tinku Garg, Naveen Saini and Tarsem were found to be
involved in the commission of offence in conspiracy with each other.
He has submitted that the raids are being conducted on the house of all
the accused and despite having been issued the notices under Section
41-A of Cr.P.C., they did not join the investigation. He has submitted
that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, though the
petitioner had joined the investigation, however as he has the shelter of
the interim bail, there is no progress is the investigation as neither he
has cooperated during the investigation nor the co-accused could be
arrested so far. He has submitted that the arrest warrants of the co-
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130579
accused were issued by the trial Court on 01.04.2024 but they could
not be arrested so far. He has submitted that mobile numbers of the co-
accused Tinku Garg, Tarsem and Abhishek are switched off and in
such circumstances, their location is also not traced. He has submitted
that the petitioner is an habitual offender as he is involved in two other
cases i.e. FIR No.393, dated 28.10.2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 of IPC and Sections 66C, 66 D of IT Act, Police Station Sadar
Narwana, under trial and FIR No.397, dated 09.10.2020, under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Police Station City Kaithal
under trial. He has submitted that as per the investigation conducted so
far, HDFC bank account of the petitioner bearing No.50100107709490
and ICICI Bank account number bearing 086101504506 and
086101003052 were investigated and a transaction of Rs.6,39,000/-
was found in his account regarding the victim Yashpal whereas
regarding the victim Manoj Kumar, a transaction of Rs.6,50,000/- has
been found. He has thus submitted that complicity of the petitioner in
the offence is evident for which the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is required. He has submitted that in the facts and
circumstances, no case for the grant of anticipatory bail is made out as
the interim bail granted has totally resulted in hampering the
investigation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner however has
vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned State counsel.
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130579
He has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and no
money has been paid to the petitioner. He has thus submitted that the
interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 18.01.2024 be
made absolute.
7. Heard.
8. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing
the record, it is deciphered that the FIR has been lodged by the
complainants wherein the specific allegations have been made against
the petitioner and the co-accused. Though this Court had granted the
interim bail to the petitioner and as per the information, he has joined
also but the same has been opposed by the learned State counsel on the
premise that the investigation has been scuttled. The status report has
been filed by the learned State counsel and the bank statement has also
been produced. The verification of the bank account of petitioner
shows heavy transaction in his account, which amount is alleged to
have been taken by cheating the victims. Antecedents of the petitioner
are also not clean as he is already involved in two more cases of the
similar nature. The Investigating Agencies though are trying to trace
out the co-accused but till date, they have not succeeded in tracing
them.
9. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory
parameters are given under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130579
Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on
an 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 cognisable 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.
10. 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
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130579
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 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 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130579
11. 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.
12. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law
settled, it is apparent that the investigation is meant for unravelling the
mystery and thus, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.
13. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
the petitioner do not qualify for the grant of anticipatory bail and the
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130579
same is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
30.09.2024
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
