High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/1544/2025dismissed

Ranjit Singh Randhawa v. State Of Haryana

2025-01-15Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil6 pages

#!$ $ %&'%(

)*+,-

'() *

)+),

./0 * +11'

)( +( )+)'

')+ '23 '2( '3$ /& $(2+

) # #

./0

4 " The complainant, proprietor of Auto Solution, an entity dealing in the purchase and sale of secondhand vehicles, lodged a complaint with the police. He alleged that Vinay Yadav, whom he met at Auto Empire, Sector 47, Gurugram, began working with him in October 2022. Vinay Yadav claimed to be a resident of Mani Majra, Chandigarh. Over time. Vinay Yadav started selling vehicles beionging to the complainant in Punjab and other cities. The complainant alleged that Vinay

Yadav had failed to pay him the due amount of 714,00,000/, despite assuring that the amount would be returned incrementally. Subsequently, Vinay Yadav introduced the complainant to one Vikas Baba, the owner of Auto Gallery, through a telephonic conversation. Vinay Yadav proposed that collaborating with Vikas Baba in buying and selling vehicles would yield significant profits. He also fixed his own commission in the arrangement and guaranteed payments. The complainant reported that two vehicles, a Porsche (registration No.DL1S9717) and a Mercedes CClass (registration No. DL1CS5353), were under Auto Gallery. The complainant claimed that his share of {10,50,000/ from these vehicles was taken by Vinay Yadav. Additionally, two oiher vehicles, both Toyota Innova Crystas (registration No.

CH01BN6832 and CH01BH5343), were taken by Vinay Yadav under the pretext of showing them to potential customers in Punjab. However, the complainant discovered that Vinay Yadav had transferred these vehicles to other individuals. The complainant further alleged that a Maruti Celerio (registration No. DL6C$2132), registered in the complainant's name, was also taken by Vinay Yadav for some days. However, he did not return the said vehicle. The total value of these vehicles, along with the outstanding {14,00,000/, amounted to 69,00,000/, which Vinay Yadav assured would be paid within 10 to 15 days. However, Vinay Yadav neither returned the vehicles nor made any payments. Eventually, he stopped responding to the complainant's calls. Following the registration of an FIR, the police arrested Vinay Yadav son of Ram Bahadur.

During the investigation, the Maruti Celerio (DL6C$2132) was recovered from Vinay Yadav. It was revealed that the Porsche (DL1CS9717), Mercedes CClass (DLICS5353), and the two Toyota Innova Crystas (CH01BN6832 and CH01BH5343) had been sold to various dealers. The investigation further revealed that one of the Toyota Innova Crystas (CH01BN6832) was given by Vinay Yadav to the applicantaccused, Ranjit Singh Randhawa. Ranjit Singh subsequently sold the vehicle to a dealer named Deepa Bhandari, who transferred amounts of {5,00,000/ and 27,50,000/ to him." , ).-%.-')./ .

0%,1&( )( -,% 2%-'-').%3

# )+)' 6

# 2 8 * "0)2&2929:

# #

# #- #

$128,:

& & 6

# )+)'

## #

# #-

0%,1&( )( -,%

-1-%45)62&1'.1.- <

.1&7/'/ % =

8&"+$*2(,):

#-;#

0 1+++++>4

0 31++++>4 6

# -

"?-

- #

prima facie

# =

# - 64 @It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that chargesheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.

Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside.

In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail.

application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."

6 =

',( & &

6 =

!" #$$

#4 "We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded 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 material 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 prearrest 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 thirddegree methods needs 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."

# -

4 #

8 #

# #

&;#

# #

# !$

Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No