[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raju Dewasi vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2026
225
CRM-M-16246-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16246-2026
Date of decision: 21.04.2026
RAJU DEWASI ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present:- Mr. Simar Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. A.K. Mahir, AAG Punjab.
.....
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the
BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR
No.16 dated 12.02.2024 registered under Sections 419, 420, 120-B IPC
and Sections 66-C, 66-D of the I.T. Act (Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC
added later on), at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana.
2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in
connivance with other co-accused defrauded the complainant to an amount
of Rs.50 lakhs on the pretext of constructing a temple. Hence, the present
FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no
connection with the alleged fraud. He argued that initially the FIR was
registered against some unknown persons and the petitioner was roped in
authenticity of this order/judgment
only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. Apart from the
disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner
with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of
the co-accused during his/her custodial interrogation is not admissible in
evidence. He submits that the other co-accused persons (mother and father
of the petitioner) have already been granted concession of bail by this
Hon'ble High Court. He submits that neither the petitioner made any
phone call to the complainant nor he received any money. He submits that
the only role attributed to the petitioner is that the alleged duped money
was distributed at his residence. Moreover, the petitioner has clean
antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join
the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating
agency. Hence, he prays that present petition be allowed.
4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated
and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an
application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated
02.03.2026.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status
report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the
same, she has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory
bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are
serious in nature. She argued that the petitioner played central and pivotal
2026.04.21 16.10 role in execution of the offence. She submits that the entire operation of
authenticity of this order/judgment
cheating and inducement was being orchestrated under the instructions of
the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner along with other co-accused
persons ensured the subsequent distribution of the defrauded amount. She
submits that substantial portion of the defrauded amount was retained by
the petitioner. She further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is required to ascertain the modus operandi adopted by him.
Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant the
concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to
have played a central and active role in orchestrating the offence, including
supervising the inducement of the complainant and distribution of the
defrauded amount. The contention that the petitioner has been implicated
solely on the basis of disclosure statement of a co-accused cannot be
accepted at this stage, as the investigation is still at a nascent stage and the
role of the petitioner is yet to be fully unearthed. At this stage, the
investigation is still in progress and the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner appears necessary to unearth the complete modus operandi, trace
the money trail and recover the cheated amount. The material on record at
this stage prima facie indicates towards the existence of a bigger syndicate
indulging in dubious activities as a result of which, innocent victims end
up being preyed upon by such illusory tactics. While considering the plea
for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is required to consider the overall
nature of offence and accusations against the accused, the manner of
2026.04.21 16.10 occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-
authenticity of this order/judgment
arrest protection to the petitioner, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail to
the petitioner with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be
justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine the
seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations,
the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective
investigation in the matter.
7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for
grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between
safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court
ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role
attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the
deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would
be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State
Vs. Anil Sharma', (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under:
"6. We find, force in the submission of CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented
than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a
favourable 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
information 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
authenticity of this order/judgment
entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not
conduct themselves as offenders."
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as "P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement", (2019) 9 SCC 24, while
dealing with economic offences, has held that the power of anticipatory bail
should be sparingly exercised in economic offences. The relevant portion of
the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and
other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can
be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai
Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held
as under: (SCC p.386, para 19)
"19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a
serious offence are required to be satisfied and further
while granting such relief, the court must record the
reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in
exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie
of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in
the crime and would not misuse his liberty".
Economic Offences
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an
extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more
so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand
as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the
society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar
Jain, it was held that in economic offences, the accuse is
not entitled to anticipatory bail.
XXX XXX XXX
83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation
may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the
accused and in collecting the useful information and also
the materials which might have been concealed. Success in
such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that
he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of
anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would
definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard
to the materials said to have been collected by the
respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the
stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a
authenticity of this order/judgment
fit case to grant anticipatory bail".
9. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition in
the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and if it is denied, it will
leave many loose ends, which is not desired. Thus, the present petition being
devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
10. It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to
be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
21.04.2026 JUDGE
puneet
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
