AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Sections 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.83 dated 21.06.2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sector – 5, Panchkula. Alternatively, the petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order dated 05.08.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been dismissed.
The allegations in the FIR, as set-out in the petition, is that the complainant namely Dr. Ram Paul Chander, aged about 71 years, was induced over a period extending from the year 2022 to 2026 to part with substantial amount on the basis of false representation(s) with regard to highly lucrative investment opportunities. The main accused namely Parmeshwari Din Pal (husband of the petitioner), allegedly represented himself to be a former Air Force personnel and a scientist associated with DRDO and claimed to possess high-level contacts and access to investment opportunities in high value articles. As per the allegations, the said Parmeshwari Din Pal, allegedly induced the complainant initially to invest in purported high-value antique binoculars and thereafter in a rare radioactive article purported to be used in advanced rocket technology. Believing the representation(s) made by the said accused, the complainant made payment(s) from time to time. It has been further alleged that when the complainant had parted with a substantial part of his savings, the accused –– Parmeshwari Din Pal induced him to sell his industrial plot situated at Panchkula for approximately Rs.7 crores & part with a substantial portion of the sale proceeds thereof. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant was induced to part with approximately ₹7.8 crores through bank transfers and cash but received no return on the alleged investments. The complainant has further alleged that he was repeatedly asked not to disclose the transactions to his family members/friends and the alleged fraud only came to light when his family members examined his bank statements and made inquiries regarding the transactions. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as no specific role or overt act has been attributed to her in the same. Learned counsel has further iterated that the entire allegation of inducement, cheating, forgery and criminal intimidation is against the main accused i.e. Parmeshwari Din Pal, who is the husband of the petitioner. It has been further contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner that she ever met the complainant, induced him to make any investment and/or made any representation to him in any of the alleged transactions. It has been further contended that the petitioner cannot be made liable merely because she is the wife of the main accused. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has been living separately from her husband because of matrimonial differences and she has no connection whatsoever with his alleged business dealings or financial transactions. Furthermore, the petitioner was neither aware of the alleged dealings between her husband and the complainant nor had any communication with the complainant. It has been argued that the amount(s) in question have been transferred by the husband of the petitioner over a period of about 4½ years and such recurring transfer(s) from the husband to the account of his wife cannot be treated as the alleged proceeds of crime. Learned counsel has further contended that the amount allegedly connecting the petitioner to the offence in question i.e. ₹6,19,551/- is only a very small fraction of the total amount (approximately ₹7.8 crores) alleged to have been cheated from the complainant. It has been further contended that the petitioner is a senior citizen, has deep roots in society and there is no likelihood of her absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing any witness. Moreover, the entire case against the petitioner is essentially documentary in nature which is already available with the investigating agency & thus, there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
In oppugnation, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has iterated that substantial amount(s) have been transferred into the account of the petitioner from the main accused and the petitioner has failed to satisfactorily explain the nature of these transactions. According to learned State counsel, the case in hand relates to a large-scale economic fraud involving approximately ₹7.8 crores, wherein the complainant, an elderly person, was allegedly induced over a period of several years to part with his life savings as well as the proceeds received from the sale of his immovable property on the false promise of lucrative investments. Furthermore, the investigation has disclosed a prima facie financial nexus between the petitioner and the alleged proceeds of crime. It has been further contended that the investigation is still in progress and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to identify other beneficiaries, trace the proceeds of the alleged offence and to establish the complete chain of events and conspiracy. Learned State counsel has emphasized that releasing the petitioner on bail at this crucial stage may hamper the ongoing investigation and potentially lead to tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition in order to facilitate effective investigation into the alleged offence.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak Yashwant Patil and another passed in SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relevant whereof reads as under:
“74.Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In State v. Anil Sharma [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.
75.Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19)
“19.Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code.”
76.In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514], the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
77.After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , 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. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)”
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 [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.”
15.In Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, Constitution Bench of this Court held that while considering an application for grant of pre-arrest bail the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:-
“92.4.Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.”
Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner from the material brought forth before this Court. The allegations in the FIR ibid reflect that the complainant, a senior citizen, was allegedly made to part with his life savings and the proceeds of sale of his immovable property on the false promise of lucrative investments in purported DRDO linked projects and rare radioactive substances. The alleged amount involved is approximately ₹7.8 crores and the nature of the allegations reflects a serious economic offence which requires proper investigation into the entire financial chain and the role of all persons connected with the transactions need to be ascertained. The investigation, at this stage, has reflected a prima facie financial nexus between the petitioner and the alleged proceeds of crime. Furthermore, the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie indicates that the petitioner was in receipt of monetary transactions from the account(s) linked with the main accused. In the considered opinion of this Court, the explanation furnished by the petitioner regarding such transactions is a matter of investigation. Though it is correct that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR, however, her involvement has surfaced subsequently during the course of investigation. The contention that the allegations are primarily against the main accused i.e. her husband and the petitioner had no knowledge with regard to source and nature of the money does not persuade this Court at this stage as the investigation so far reflects a financial nexus between the petitioner and the alleged proceeds of crime which requires further probe. The investigation is still in progress and the role of petitioner is yet to be ascertained. The stand of the State before this Court is that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable to trace the entire money trial, identify the beneficiaries and ascertain the precise role of each participant. The nature and gravity of the offence, involving defrauding the complainant, who is a 71 year old senior citizen, necessitate a thorough investigation, which, at this stage, cannot be conducted without the petitioner being in custody. Moreover, the complainant was allegedly deceived over a prolonged period into parting with his life savings and the sale-proceeds of his immovable property. Moreover, no exceptional or compelling circumstance has been demonstrated which would warrant the grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offence.
The investigation is at a crucial stage and the role of each accused including the petitioner requires thorough investigation. The mere fact that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR does not rule out the possibility of her active involvement in facilitating the offence. The grant of bail at this stage may impede the ongoing investigation and may also adversely affect the efforts of the investigating agency in unraveling the conspiracy. The nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the petitioner as also the factual matrix of the lis essentially leads to the unequivocal conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
It is pertinent to mention here that the relief of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief aimed to protect the personal liberty of an individual. However, while deciding a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to strike a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest. The Court must also consider the gravity of the offence; the role attributed to the petitioner; the impact on the Society and the need for fair and free investigation. The relief must not unduly hamper the rights of the investigating agency to conduct free, fair and impartial investigation. 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 Hon'ble 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, the nature of the offence and the financial transactions involved, it may not be possible for the investigating agency to unravel the entire truth if the petitioner is armed with a protective order. Moreover, it is the specific stand of the State that the custodial interrogation is necessary to take the investigation to its logical end and to conclude a fair and meaningful investigation.
In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:
The instant petition is 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.