Parminder Kaur v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-9336-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9336-2023

Reserved on: 25.04.2023

Pronounced on: 17.05.2023 Parminder Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Sant Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Virat Rana, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the complainant. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 14.01.2023 Naya Gaon, District SAS 406, 420, 120B IPC Nagar 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, on the allegations of cheating, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2.

In paragraph 19 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3.

Petitioner's counsel argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4.

State's counsel opposes the bail.

REASONING:

5.

The petitioner conspiracy is that she had cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs 8 lacs in the name of selling house alleging that same is owned by her husband whereas he was neither the owner nor in the possession of same. The petitioner further agreed to give him 3 marlas of land claiming it to be part of house for which she demanded double amount but it was found that it was situated at a different place and was not a part of house.

6.

Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is required. An analysis of ANJU RANI 2023.05.17 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-9336-2023 the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner.

7.

In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [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 (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. PadamNarain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305].

8.

In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [6]. 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 suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he 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 task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

9.

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage.

10. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to these comments.

Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 17.05.2023 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

ANJU RANI 2023.05.17 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document