Yugwinder Singh Brar v. State Of Punjab


   


 



  
 


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

Yugwinder Singh Brar ...... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab

...Respondent

  , - * .
 . .



Present:

Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab ***** . .

/

*

01 The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.29 dated 05.02.2023 under Sections 420, 406, 1208B IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bathinda.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was made by Harpreet Singh son of Kewal Singh and Mandeep Kaur wife of Harpreet Singh and reads as under:8


 

       !!"  !

 $

 ! %

& 

 '

 '

) *+ $

(# ,-.//01 /.0//2 $

!

(# 3+  *     4(    !

*  &  5/

 $

00-./-/ $ ) *+ !3#6*!

(#

*     # 3  7 '  !

(#  --.    



#

(7111  # ' ( *  * *  * 7

!

8*9 





+*3

( #*   *    #

#+ 

3 *

  ( 6    "7          '   7111

#  

3*'  *( * ' +#

#+ ( 6 #*(#'

#* 3

 '

' #*(#  '  * #*.

.

+  ,% 2 

*% *  !

(#

  #

  #

 ' 

# *

+# 6   *    +#+ 

 

#

 *'

( ':

 ' ' # *'

(':

6* '+ #

 * #*

 (  '

  



+

3 



 #'$ '

(





*9 

**

 (

 

3*( * ( #

'

* *   *   *

 * * (* ' ( 6  

 #

  *  #

(  #+ (   *( #*

 (

' ( 

# *'   (

#  

3

 # *( (

 %

#  ( 6

 # * +#

# * **   #  #

 #  * *;+  6* 3 <*

# !=.

** !

(#  ) *> 3.

Based on the aforementioned complaint, an enquiry was conducted and pursuant thereto the aforementioned FIR came to be registered against the petitioner, Beant Kaur, Naresh Kumar and Gaurav Kumar. The role of Amandeep Kaur was to be examined during the course of the investigation.

Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, Beant Kaur was declared innocent whereas Amandeep Kaur was nominated as an accused in the FIR

 on 19.03.2023. She was joined in the investigation by way of production warrants and disclosed that she had handed over the original passports of the complainants to the petitioner, the owner of National Consultant, Top Immigration & Visa Consultant at Chandigarh.

It also surfaced during the course of investigation that accused8 Amandeep Kaur (Account No.1721239812300725) had transferred the amount in account No.920020048627570 in the name of National Consultant, Top Immigration & Visa Consultant operated by Naresh Kumar and Gaurav Kumar and they used to transfer money from their bank accounts into the bank account No.920010031556055 of the petitioner with the Axis Bank.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's name does not find mention in the original complaint filed by the complainants. His name surfaced during the course of the enquiry. Taking all the allegations to be true, no amount of money was received in the account of the petitioner. He has been roped as an accused with the aid of Section 1208B IPC only. As the petitioner was ready and willing to join the investigation, he was entitled to the concession of bail. 5.

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while referring to the affidavit dated 07.05.2024 contends that during the course of the enquiry and thereafter, during investigation, it transpired that the money received by Amandeep Kaur had been transferred by her to the petitioner, Naresh Kumar and Gaurav Kumar. A huge amount of approximately Rs.39 lacs had been misappropriated. As the offence was*

 made out and the investigation was to be taken to its logical conclusion, the

 custodial interrogation of the petitioner was certainly required and therefore, he was not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of




             ! has held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the *

 case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:8
8  '

    *           *  

 (*7 /

*(.# #  *   8 +  

* *'*

# 86

( ?

*    *9 *  7  / *

 

**(

* #** #* 6

 $ 

 

 '

  6  '

( 

  +#* 7 /  *9 **  

**(

 +

*

 

#

(#* (#  # 6(*   *  ** 



*

 ;  *  

(  +

#   '

*  +#*   #  *

'

 ,   #* 2  #   '  *   * *  (

#



*

(*   #

(#* 

#

#  

  

 #*+* #

'

 

#

(#* +*( :*



 * +# (* (



*

 #

 

6**  ' 3"?!? #** #**   #

(#* (* (



*

 #

 #   9 #   " # $% # &



! '

( %$

% $%%  )  & ) $(

 % $%  

%)% 

*





+%

! $% # & # & ) 

 ,

   % &  

% $%$ % %+ '  + % $ +% $% 



%)%  

% &#  % $%!     % '%

&  )%% ) % % )  $% # &  % 



%)% $ & % %+ 

(  $ % & $%

 %) ' %

) %  '

$ )   $% 

-) $% # &  ,

# & # $   '$  $%  

%)% %+  $$

# % &

*

! &   %      +$ $ )  $$

%

& )%

%(

%%-



%

& ) 

$% # &  , +   +%

% )   $%    )  $% # &  $% %

$%

   +$ $   )  $$

 ,

+

!  

%+  %++ $ %

&

%%-

%  %) '  

# %+    %  

%)% $ & % %+  ) %  %

$  $%  

%)% .%'

 + $% 



%)%  %

*

 $ 

! &# 

+! $% &  ) % % )  $% # & > 8.

A perusal of the record would reveal that the complainants were duped of approximately Rs.39 lacs on the pretext of sending them abroad. As per the investigation conducted so far, Amandeep Kaur received the amount which she further transferred to the petitioner, Naresh Kumar and Gaurav Kumar. Therefore, *  

the offence stands established against the petitioner. Further, to effect recoveries and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required.

9.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.

 10.

However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence lead before it uninfluenced by any such observations made.

. .



  2 )/  

sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No