Ashraf v. State Of Haryana



  

  
    


 























 










  

 


       


  
 !!!!






 
 












 
























 





 

 
!
" #
$$$$

  
" #$%&'(
  %
"  
 
&"
"
 
'()
*)+),

 #
 



-
# 


 


./
*
')0
 +)11)+)'

"
 
'+2

')+

/&

 

 
  
*"
  
*"  " 




./



"
- 3To, S.P. District Nuh. Subject Application for taking legal action the accused person namely Ashraf Hussain son of Allah Baksh Ex Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Ghasera P.S. Sadar Nuh District Nuh regarding having misappropriated the Panchayat funds. Sir, The applicant prayer as follows 1. That the applicant is Gram Panchayat Ghasera and at present the Sarpanch is Imran and the

present application is being submitted by the Gram Panchayat for the registration of the case. 2. That the above mentioned accused person in an illegal manner have misappropriated the Panchayat funds at the time when he was the Sarpanch of the village and are in habit of committing the fraud. 3. That earlier also one case bearing FIR No. 83 dated 16.06.22 under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC is registered against the accused person at P.S. Sadar Nuh. 4. That the above mentioned accused person during his tenure on dated 20.09.2019 had given the pond in village Ghasera on lease for a period of 8 years in an illegal and wrongful manner given the pond on lease to Usman son of Illayas resident of village Ghasera and had also given one receipt by putting signatures over it of Rs.

9,50,000/ whereas the record of the said receipt is neither available in the Panchayat office or the BDPO Office Nuh and also the said amount was not deposited in the account of the Panchayat and thus by not depositing the said amount of Rs. 9,50,000/ into the Panchayat account, the said amount has been embezzied by the accused person. That in this manner the accused person in order to give benefit to himself and to cause loss to the Panchayat. 5. That the above person has filed one case bearing CS No. 858 of 2023 in Civil Court for getting the stay on the leasing of said Johar on the basis of the said receipt which is as such fake titled as Usman versus Gram Panchayat Ghasera in which Ld. Kartik Sharma Civil Judge Junior Division Nuh had dismissed the application for stay and against the same Usman had filed one CMA bearing No.

25 of 2024 titled as Usman versus Gram Panchayat Ghasera in which Ld. Sushil Kumar District and Sessions Judge Nuh vide order dated 07.08.2024 at page No. 6 has elaborated that Sarpanch had embezzled an amount of Rs.

 Sarpanch at that time had not got deposited the amount of Rs. 9,50,000/ and had wrongly leased the Panchayat land for a period of 8 years and also embezzled the entire amount of Panchayat funds. 6. That the above mentioned accused is a habitual person who is involved in grabbing the money and the amount of Rs. 9,50,000/ along with interest be got recovered from the accused person and also a case deserves to be got registered against the accused person, also the accused person deserves to be sent behind the bars, the applicant shall be thankful. Note Copy of order is attached herewith. Sd/ Imran Sarpanch Gram Ghasera through Imran Sarpanch, Block Nuh, District Nuh. Mobile No. 9817356300.'

,    



 !

4
"


 
"


#55 



 6



/

"

7"  8

"  5


9

:;


#  " 

7"


"
#

4


  
<



8

9"
-1
."

   
"


= 
 



122'


  
8 
"
8 
 
0,
" 



 
  



 # 
"
#


" 
 
" =8

"


#
"




# 
 
 
=
"
"# 


"
 
  
#
 
 








" 
 

 





  
  
 5



 

"
 

 "
" 

" 

   

  "  <





&"







 
 

" 
;



  
8"
#
7"



" 



 




 
 

 



"

  

#55


# 



  =

"


 
  ' #  " $$ !

/


  



"
 #


"  

 




>
 # 







 

"

8 "
8
%
&"

9 
8
 



=8
 
8


#
9 
#
 &"
8 
"
 "   


 




8 

  
  

"


!
 
8 
8


#
"




"


 




 
 
  



!
 







<
  
 
"
 
"  

 
"

."
 
&" 8"



 "
 "


 


 







" 


#"
  
" 

 
 

 ""
 %
 
  " 

"



" 



  




 
   
 " 

   
  
"
8  



 



"
%
  

"
#55





 "
 "



 


 
 



 

 
" 
 
 


"
"

 
%


8
"" 

"

 
8 


   


"# 
"


""
" 
"

 
 "
%

 


 



8  

  





 


 
  
# 
#"
 

 




%


"
 

 
 


"

 

  
# 




 %
=?#
"
&"




  " % # & & ' #  () (* + , -. 


#" " 

8

7"


# 
"

#

"

   
# 
%





 

&"
 
   
# 
  

 


 
 

 
 "
%

9


"

"
 #8 - @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. 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."




 
 






/


8

8
9 #
"
 
'()
* )+),

8
9  





#
9 
 9 


%
"
&"

0 ) #  12 +
., .



-.3


" - "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."

.

0
)*+,+$- /
 8


 "


 




  




 
" 

" 

  

 
7"


% 
/



 



  



#
   =8






# 

 

  

"

  
 
# 
  


% 
&"

 
 " 
"




8 
8

  
(     meenu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No