Surinder Kumar Saini v. State Of Punjab
!"
"
"# $"% &'(&)
*+,-.
"#$ % $&$'
( ( )
*+, &&-"
$. &/ $&$"
"$& +! #0& 1 (
)
*+,
2 "Application to S.S.P. Sahib, Pathankot, Subject:Application Against Surinder Kumar Saini, Son of Gurbaksh Saini and Rajat Saini, Son of Surinder Kumar Saini, Resident of Village Gidderpur, Police Station Taragarh:Tehsil/District Pathankot. Regarding cheating of Rs. 6,00,000/ (Six lakh rupees) on the pretext of job. Sir, It is submitted that I am Harbans Lal, Son of Shri Chhajju Ram, Resident of Village Khoki Chak, P.S. Narot Jaimal Singh, Tehsil/District Pathankot. The above Surinder Kumar Saini and his son Rajat Saini had taken R$. 6,00,000 (six lakh rupees) from me about 2 years ago in connection with getting my son Jatinder Kumar a job in Food Corporation of India. Despite a
long time, the above did not get my son a job. When I asked for return of money, he gave me three cheques No. 645331, 645332, and 645334 for the amount of Rs.2/ lakh each drawn in Punjab National Bank Dinanagar (Gurdaspur) by saying that I should withdraw money from the bank by encashment of these cheques but when I presented these cheques for encashment in the bank these cheques are bounced due to lack of money in his account. Now his phone is also getting switched off. I belong to a very poor family and I had given this money to him after getting it from my relatives and mortgaging my land. The above mentioned persons have deliberately cheated me. Therefore, it is requested that strictest legal action be taken against the abovementioned persons and my money be got returned to me. I will be thankful to you.
Yours faithfully Harbans Lal son of Shri Chhajju Ram resident of village Khojki Chak, Police Station Narot Jaimal Singh Tehsil/District Pathankot Mobile 82844821163 Signature English Date 18.06.2024.137RDSPRPTK Dated 19.06.2024, 1143Submission Dated: 18:06:2024 PGD 366561. To look into matter as per law & facts Sd/ Sr. Supdt of police Pathankot 18.06.2024."
'
*/.&/.(*/0 / 1&-2') *) .-& 3&.(.(*/&4 3
)
1
+
4 5
1
mala fide
1 6 1) 1 7
(
)
5 &. $ $&$"
) 2 1) ,
)
/ 1&-2') *) .-&
.2.&56*73'2(/2/.
) 1 7
2 1 +
1
4
,
8 $&&&&&82 5 1
5 4 5 /2'90(0 +
1
)
5
6 ) 5
75
5
6
1
prima facie
1 6
*!+
6 , 0&&&&&82
1
)
4 , $&&&&&82
5 1
4 5
1
, &&&&&82
*
1 1
1 %
1 !4 ) 1 5 ) 6 1) :
1 %
1 7 primafacie
"$&
)
4
2 ,
)
2
1
1)
1
1
1
1
)
)
1
) )
7;
1
1)
)
1
)
prima facie
6
1
52 <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.
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. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an 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."
+
5 5 6
"#$ %
15 6 )
6
6
1
!" #$$
#
%
2 "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."
=
5 1
5
5
1
1) +
)
1
1)
+
)
) 1
1 1
75
)
1
5
"%
Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No