AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOELSUMEET GOEL,,, J. (Oral)
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.32 dated 07.03.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983, at Police Station Phool, District Bathinda.
The FIR in question pertains to cheating the complainant-side to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- on the false pretext of sending them abroad and providing them forged visa and tickets.
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 iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It has been argued that the petitioner has already returned an amount of Rs.2.5 lakh to the petitioner. It has been argued that, in fact, the dispute in hand is essentially civil in nature, arising out of alleged monetary transactions, which have unnecessarily been given a criminal colour.
Learned counsel has urged that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Sukhpal Kaur has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 17.08.2026 passed in CRMCRMCRM-M---3970939709---2026.2026
Learned counsel has iterated that 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 and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
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. Learned State counsel has iterated that considering the seriousness of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for fair and effective investigation. Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. Thus, dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. A perusal of the prosecution case, as also the material available on record, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner had received a substantial amount of money from the complainant-side on the pretext of arranging visas and air tickets for their travel abroad. It is further the case of the prosecution that, instead of fulfilling the promise so made, the petitioner furnished forged/fabricated visas and air tickets to the complainant-side. Despite having received the aforesaid amount, the petitioner neither made any genuine arrangement for sending the complainant-side abroad nor refunded the money so received from them. The allegations, prima facie, establish the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of offence in question.
The plea raised by the petitioner that his co-accused, namely Sukhpal Kaur, has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.08.2026 (ibid.) is of no avail to him, as the said co-accused was extended the concession of anticipatory bail on account of the peculiar circumstances that she was at an advanced stage of pregnancy, and had clean antecedents.
Perusal of the petition in hand shows that the petitioner has himself admitted that he is involved in 01 more FIR. The aforesaid criminal antecedent(s) reveal that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a tendency to indulge in criminal activities. Such antecedent(s) cannot be brushed aside as a mere coincidence and is a relevant consideration while adjudicating the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The criminal antecedent(s) of the petitioner also raise a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the concession of bail, or interfere with the fair course of justice. The possibility of his absconding or influencing prosecution witnesses also cannot be ruled out.
The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence during the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.
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.”
In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismisseddismissed.
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.