Kamal Preet Singh Alias Kanwaljeet Singh v. State Of Punjab
!
! "!
#$%&'&
(!
!
!)* !+ !
%,-$% "
#$%
&' ()
)
*+*%
,-.
( ++/% */ +% *+*%
#+0 #*+ #01 #0$ #1! !*+2&
-3
4) 5
( 6 2!
'
,-.
2 .It is registered that at this time one complaint number 1046/5D/police station Zirakpur from Sanjay Kumar Garg s/o Late kapur Chand Garg r/o house no. A'1, 1003 Maya Garden city Nagla Road Zirakpur police station Zirakpur district S.A.S. Nagar written action police ASI Chamkor singh 739/SAS Nagar by hand through P.H.G Lajja Ram 30777 has been received," To, Head Offucer police station Zirakpur. Subject' Kamalpreet Singh s/o Harbans Singh r/o house no. 32 B Sharma Estate, Lohgarh Road Zirakpur district S.A.S Nagar, his wife Ashminder Kaur and Balwinder Singh Sharaf s/o Mohammad Sharaf r/o telephone
exchange colony, Patiala road Zirakpur and Ashminder Kaur's two relative Sunny and Puppy r/o Delhi with regard to fraud of crores of rupees committed by them with us. Respected Sir it is requested that we are resident of Zirakpur and Panchkula. We are mutual friends. Among us someone is bank employee and someone used to work as property dealer. One of our friend Kamalpreet Singh s/o Harbans Singh r/o house no. 32/B Sharma Estate, Lohgarh Road Zirakpur district S.A.S Nagar who do work of immigration with his wife Ashminder Kaur, Balwinder Sharaf and Ashminder Kaur's two relatives Sunny and Pappi r/o Delhi from his house. These above five through a conspiracy committed fraud with us of around 10 crore rupees.
Kamalpreet Singh and his wife Ashminder Kaur above by preparing forged documents have opened 8 bogus accounts in different'different banks. Committed fraud with us by putting money in those accounts. bogus detail Whose is as following: 1. Sanjay Kumar Garg s/o Late Kapur Chand Garg r/o house no. A'1, 1003 Maya Garden City Nagla Road Zirakpur police station Zirakpur district S.A.S Nagar 9501474850, around 5 crore rupees has received in different'different bank accounts, whose detail is attached herewith. Kamalpreet Singh and Ashminder Kaur. 2. Gurmehar Singh s/o Late Sh. Pal Singh r/o house no.
146,Dashmesh Colony, Patiala road Zirakpur 9417372077, around 16 lakhs has been deposited in account of Kamalpreet Singh and rest 22 lakh 81 thousand received in different'different bank accounts, whose detail is attached herewith (Kamalpreet singh as a trust had given different'different cheques of 3 lakh and 5 lakh ruppes bank account по. 19180100007458 of Federal Bank Zirakpur. On which he has written his name Kawaljeet Singh. 3. Baljinder Singh s/o Charanjit Singh r/o house no. 62, Green Park Colony, Lohgarh Road Zirakpur 9815376017, around 23 lakh 79 thousand ruppes deposited in Yes Bank Zirakpur bank account no. 04593600000949. Whose detail is attached herewith (Deposited in Kamalpreet Singh's account through R.T.G.S and account pay). 4. Shashank Sharma s/o Surinder Sharma r/o house no.
Mahindra Bank account no. 5647009904. Whose detail is attached herewith (Deposited in Kamalpreet Singh's account through R.T.G.S). 5. Yogesh Mahajan s/o Ramesh Mahajan r/o flat no. 18' C, Skynet Enclave Lohgarh Road Zirakpur 9876084213, around 25 lakh rupees (received in H.D.F.C, Kotak Bank and I.C.I.C.I bank through card swiping). Whose detail is attached herewith. 6.Vijay Kumar Juneja s/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal r/o flat no. 601, tower no.
4. Royal Estate Zirakpur 9216730000, around 44 lakh ruppes (given in front of Paras Tulli and Rajat Nayar in cash). 7. Asees s/o Kishan r/o house no. 623, sector 11 Panchkula 8447094882, around 20 lakh ruppes cash (given in front of Mehndi Ratta and Abhishek Indwal. Kamalpreet Singh, Ashminder Kaur, Balwinder Sharaf r/o of Zirakpur and Sunny, Pappi r/o Delhi above with their families are in keen desire to go abroad. If they are not got arrested today then they will evade abroad with our money and money given by us to them will die. It is our request that relative legal action should be taken against these two. We will be thankful to you. Sd/ Sanjay GARG, 95014'75851, Sd/' Gurmehar Singh94173'72077. Sd/'Baljinder Singh 98153'76017, Sd/' Shashanksh Sharm 9888886085. Sd/ Yogesh Mahajan 98760' 84213, Sd/' Vijay Kumar 92167'30000, Sd/' Ashish 84470'94882.' % /01$012/0&
03$4,56/614$7$1212/0$% 7
'
8 9 8
2 '
8
)
'
88
. !+
9 8
8
'
- 8
*$ +0 *+*%
'
8 !!
; '
68
:
)'
) 8 '
03$4,56/614$ 1,1$ <
2 '
: )
7
- <
'
,-.
88
. !+ # 0,5-&2& ,
'
!
' !!
*$ '
'
8
8
' '
:
*$ +0 *+*%
'
8 !!
; '
68
:
)'
) 8 :
.
8
6
=
:
8 6 .
8
2 "2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the
investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first'time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re'Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v. King'Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age'old and the liberal
interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory." "
8
:
'
*!
- "
8
6
=!
"
#$ !
%&
'
(
( & :
2
2
) :
'
8
8 :
8
'
8
3.22*>/!#2*+** 8' )
* %+
),
+* +% *+*% : : *!
-
8
8
)
8 8 ?
'
)
- '
'
@ '
:
>
$52$6 - :
8
'
@5 '
: 8 ' 6
8
" 8 : * !+
anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No