AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.147 dated 19.07.2025 registered under Sections 318(4) of BNS at Police Station Mukerian District Hoshiarpur.
Vide order dated 14.01.2026, the following order was passed:-
“For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as "BNS" only, the FIR No. 147 dated 19.07.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. In the above-mentioned case, the petitioner is apprehending arrest, and therefore, by virtue of present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as "BNSS" only, he has approached this Court for the benefit of anticipatory bail. This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner, under Section 482 BNSS.
4.Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of complainant, namely Harpreet Kaur', hereinafter being referred to as “complainant” only. The allegations against the petitioner are with regard to false promise for the job of the complainant. According to complainant, she is running an NGO and came in contact of the petitioner who told her that he was a Surgeon by profession, having good connections with political leaders and officers in various departments. As per complainant since she was in need of job, the petitioner allured her to pay some money for getting the job, and that under the above mentioned false pretexts an amount of ₹17,00,000/- was paid by her to the petitioner. The complainant has alleged that she never got the job and thus, she has been cheated.
5.Notice of motion.
6.Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State, and waives service.
7.Heard.
8.It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner and complainant were having good relationship for the last five/six years, and that there are very fair chances that if the matter is referred to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court, the parties will reach to a compromise.
9.In view of above, notice be issued to the complainant/respondent No.2 for 09.03.2026 for exploring the possibility with regard to amicable settlement between the parties.
10.In the meantime, it is hereby ordered that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. He shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
A perusal of the above clearly demonstrates that the concession had been granted to the petitioner on his positive assertions that he wishes to settle the matter. Subsequently, the petitioner averred that efforts were being made amicably to explore the possibility of compromise and thereafter repeatedly time was granted. Ultimately, the following order passed by this Court on 21.07.2026.
“Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties are exploring a possibility of an amicable settlement and hence, prays for an accommodation.
However, learned counsel for respodnent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the same and submitted that the petitioner's bona fide be tested.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will bring a demand draft of at least Rs. 5,00,000/- on the next date of hearing to demonstrate his bona fide.
In light of the above, the matter is adjourned to 12.08.2026. Interim order to continue.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not ready to comply with the said order and wishes to pursue his case on merits.
The present FIR demonstrates that the petitioner impersonated himself as a Surgeon at Unity Critical Care Hospital, Jalandhar, and induced the complainant by assuring her that she would get a government job within a month. On this pretext, he repeatedly took huge amounts of money from her at different intervals. There are specific allegations against the petitioner and cogent digital evidence was also collected during the inquiry. An amount of ₹15,40,000/- was paid to the petitioner through bank transfers and cash on the basis of the inducement given by him. Admittedly, the petitioner returned a sum of ₹4,35,000/- and thereafter initially expressed his willingness to settle the matter, but has now resiled from the same. The conduct of the petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of law and demonstrates that his intention was to cheat from the very inception.
Having regard to the allegations levelled and the stage of investigation, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner assumes significant importance to ensure that the investigation in this case comes to its logical end especially in view of the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “CBI v. Anil Sharma”, (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under:
“We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated 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 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 would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that no extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. His conduct has disentitled him to such concession. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.