Paramjeet Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5736 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1106/2022

Paramjeet Singh s/o Mr. Raj Singh R/o G-70 Vijay Vihar, Phase II Rohini North West Delhi, Delhi aged about 42 years.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Abhijit Mishra
                               Mr. Prakhar Gupta
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, P.P
                               Mr. Kan Singh Oad




         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                    Order

Order Reserved on :                 11/04/2022
Date of pronouncement:              20/04/2022

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the

petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.

195/2019, Police Station Sri Vijay Nagar, District Sriganganagar

for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present

petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is argued that

in the FIR it has been mentioned that the petitioner visited Sri

Vijaynagar where the complainant and father of students as well

as students met him and gave money to him for the purpose of

appointment in 'Scout and Guide' organization whereas, on the

date mentioned in the FIR, the petitioner was not present at Sri

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-1106/2022]

vijaynagar but he was at New Delhi and the victims were tutored

to give statements to falsely implicate the petitioner. He further

submits that in the complaint, no document of proof regarding

delivering money has been submitted. Further, it is argued for the

same offence, two FIRs have been registered against the

petitioner one at Srivijaynagar and one at Suratgarh, therefore, in

these circumstances the anticipatory bail should be granted to the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on

the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam

Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1

SCC 694, Sushila Aggarwal & Ors Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.

reproted in (2015) 6 SCC 287 and that of Telangana High Court in

the case of Syed Inayath Ullah Vs. State of Telangana reported in

2022 SCC Online TS 337.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the

complainant argued that the present petitioner is the main

accused to whom the money was delivered and who handed over

forged appointment letters to the students and even forged

training for about one month and upon asking, the petitioner

refused to return the money. It is argued that a total sum of Rs.

25 lacs has been obtained by the petitioner by way of cheating

from poor parents, therefore, at this stage, no case for grant of

anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone

through the material on record.

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-1106/2022]

In the FIR it has been mentioned that the petitioner

Paramjeet Singh alongwith co-accused Geetanjali @ Poonam came

to Srivijaynagar where the complainant met him for arranging job

for his friend's son Gaurav and after assuring the complainant that

he will arrange permanent Government service for his friend's son

in Scout and Guide and that for this purpose he will charge a sum

of Rs. 5 lacs, the complainant handed over a sum of Rs. 35,000/-

alongwith documents. The other accused persons who were

present also assured that they will arrange the appointment.

Thereafter, the accused persons gave forged appointment letter

and received Rs. 5 lacs from the complainant. It is further stated

in the FIR that thereafter, a friend of complainant Indraj also met

the accused Paramjeet for appointment of his sons Rajkumar and

Mukesh, he paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs for each to the accused who

gave forged appointment letter and also arranged one month

training. Thereafter, the petitioner also took money from

candidates Praveen Vishnoi and Bhagwan Singh for their

appointment. However, later on when no appointment was given

to the candidates, the complainant came to know about the

forgery and asked the accused to return the money, however, the

accused refused to return the money and threatened him. One

more FIR for similar offences has also been registered against the

petitioner at the Police Station, Suratgarh.

From the perusal of FIR, it is evident that the petitioner

induced the complainant to give hard earned money for

arranging appointment to various unemployed persons and then

gave fake appointment letters. Thus, taking into account the

allegations levelled against the petitioner having duped the

complainant and large number of innocent persons of their hard-

(4 of 5) [CRLMB-1106/2022]

earned money, it is not considered appropriate to release the

applicant on pre-arrest bail at this stage. Moreover, apart from the

present case, one more criminal case of similar nature has been

registered against the present petitioner.

So far as the citations referred to by the counsel for

petitioner is concerned, in the case of Sidharam (Supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court has issued guidelines while considering the

scope and ambit of anticipatory bail and observed that it should be

invoked only in exceptional or rare cases. It has been observed

by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is a discretionary power which

should be exercised with caution and prudence depending upon

the facts and circumstances justifying its exercise.

In the case of Sushila Aggarwal (supra) also, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has issued certain clarification with regard to grant of

bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C as to when the bail may be granted

and duration for which it may be granted etc till the investigation

is completed. It has been observed that the Court must keep in

mind that person seeking relief of anticipatory bail continues to be

a man presumed to be innocent.

So far as the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) is

concerned, the same relates to quashment of FIR in regard to

repayment of loan by the borrower to the Bank concerned. The

said judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner. In the

case of Syed Inayath Ullah (supra), the Telangana High Court

while dealing with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. held that it is the duty of

the police to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41-A

Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and only then arrest the

accused, which is not applicable in the present set of facts.

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-1106/2022]

In the case in hand, the collected oral and documentary

evidence prima facie shows involvement of the petitioner in the

deep rooted conspiracy with other co-accused persons. A strong

prima facie case is available against the petitioner for causing

huge financial loss to innocent persons. When the offence involves

cheating of huge amount of money and investigation is still going

on, it would not be proper at this stage to release the applicant on

pre-arrest bail.

In view of the foregoing, the bail application preferred by the

petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 45-BJSH/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)