AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BNSS') for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0011 dated 23.07.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of IPC, 1860, at Police Station PS NRI, District Hoshiarpur.
The FIR in question pertains to cheating/ fraud.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on account of her being mother-in-law of brother (Satinder Kumar) of the complainant. It has been submitted that after an unexplained delay of 02 years, the complainant has got the FIR in question registered against the petitioner and her daughter (Manpreet Kaur). Learned counsel has argued that, in fact, daughter of the petitioner had left the company of brother of the complainant on account of constant physical and mental harassment. It has been contended that, in fact, the dispute is out of a matrimonial discord, which has unnecessarily been given a criminal colour. Learned counsel has urged that the cause of action arises in U.K. since the marriage had taken place there only. It has been stated that even the petitioner has already disinherited her daughter on 12.10.2025. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence in question since neither she ever visited U.K. nor had demanded or received any money in her account.
Learned counsel has also asserted that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation, cooperate therein and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending her behind the bars. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner is a lady aged 58 years with clean antecedents. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner along with co-accused has played fraud with the complainant and his brother. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unearth the prosecution case. Given the nature of offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if she is enlarged on bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per prosecution case, the allegations against the petitioner are grave and specific. A perusal of the prosecution case, as well as the material placed on record, prima facie reveals that substantial expenditure towards the IELTS course of co-accused Manpreet Kaur (daughter of the petitioner) and the processing of her file for the United Kingdom was borne by the complainant. While declining the prayer for anticipatory bail, the learned Court below noted that, after Manpreet Kaur reached the U.K., Satinder Kumar, brother of the complainant, used to transfer his earnings through the account of his friend to the account of Manpreet Kaur, who would thereafter transfer the same to her own account maintained with PNB, Hoshiarpur Branch. It was further noted that the alleged disowning of Manpreet Kaur by the petitioner appeared to be an afterthought.
No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.
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 interests. 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 wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)
"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 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."
Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the necessity of his custodial interrogation, and the apprehension expressed by the State that the petitioner may abscond from the process of law or interfere with the prosecution evidence, in case she is afforded the concession of anticipatory bail; this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.