Shamsher Singh v. State Of Punjab

  

     

  























  



   

  

   


   !

" 



  "

#### 


 

 
 





  "$

 

 






 !
"

!#!$

  %
&
&'
( 
% 




 
)*+
"
!,
  ,$#!!#!-


!#
* 
, .#
'


 

  "

/   
0

"

'


  
1



)*+

  


( "To Hon'ble S.S.P. Sahib District S.B.S. Nagar Subject:

Complaint against Shamsher Singh son of Malook Singh, resident of Baba Gola Park, Banga, Tehsil Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar at present resident of Kharar Accharwal, Sub Tehsil Mahilpur (Phone No.8968 20189) for committing fraud with me for an amount of Rs.15,10, 000/ on the pretext of sending my two sons to abroad U.K. Sir, it is requested that I Sukhjinder Singh son

 of Makhan Singh, am resident of village Bhagehra, Tehsil Nawanshahr District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar and requested that I am resident of aforesaid address. I wanted to send my two sons namely Hardeep Singh and Gurdeep Singh to abroad. I come to know from the maternal son of my wife namely Resham Singh son of Ajit Singh resident of village Hakimpur, Tehsil Banga that accused Shamsher Singh son of Malook Singh, resident of Baba Gola Park, Banga, Tehsil Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar at present resident of Kharar Accharwal, Sub Tehsil Mahilpur is working as an agent for sending persons abroad U.K. and as I am wishing to send my sons to abroad we contacted agent Shamsher Singh. After meeting the accused, he told us that he will do the work of sending his both of sons to abroad U.K. and for this he demanded Rs.

15 Lacs 10 thousand from us. Due to which, in the presence of me, my children, wife and aforesaid Resham Singh the aforesaid accused agent has taken Rs.15 lacs 10 Thousand in the month of October, 2021. Thereafter, the aforesaid accused did not able to send my sons to abroad and thereafter we demanded our money back but after sometime aforesaid accused Shamsher Singh started lingering on the pretext that I will send your sons to some other country. Thereafter aforesaid Shamsher Singh has given his duly signed affidavit dated 27.01.2022 wherein it has been written that he will return my money by 30th March, 2022 and if he will not return the money within this agreed time then he will be bound to return my money with interest.

We have also used to visit several times to his house but aforesaid accused Shamsher Singh is deceiving me till now. I raised demand to aforesaid accused to return all my money then initially he was agreed that he will return my money and after saying so sent us back but thereafter he is also lingering and deceiving me for returning the money and now he flatly refused to return my money.

 not give any money do whatever you want to do neither you can do any harm to me nor police can do any harm to me. You go, the police will do whatever they want to do I did not give any money. I have arranged the money with hard efforts for sending my sons to abroad but aforesaid accused Shamsher Singh by telling a lie with us has committed fraud of Rs. 15,10,000/ on the pretext of sending my sons to abroad. Therefore, it is requested that strict legal action be taken against aforesaid accused and justice be done with me after getting my aforesaid money recovered from aforesaid accused. I will be highly thankful to you, Yours obediently. Sd/

Sukhjinder Singh son of Makhan Singh, resident of village Bhagehra, Tehsil Nawanshahr District Shaheed Bhagat" $





     

! 2 




 
'
 


  %
 1
3 



 



%'

   

3  
1


3  





 ''
% 
/ 


3


 1
% 


 
3




3  

% &
3
% 

  
%
&/

3


 
)*+

'
%


%
 3

 /




 1

/'



'


 /
( 
/

'

'
'1
"

3

   !

"   

&'



4  '
05


%
 '


 



 3

% 

(  

6
%3  

'




 


'

  '

7'





/
%
8

3 


# '




' 



'


'



 
' 

 



 


3  



 +,-#####7(
93 1


9

'


%  0
'

31

/ 




3  


% 

/ 

3

:

 1


 %'


'

3  


9
 


3
3 '

3 
6 
 




   $ % "

 

 *
 

3 
'



3 

% 
 '

'


;
%1

 

'

'

 





/
/  


 
9  1
/
 



6/

/
 

%
9
%1



/

3 Prima facie

'


'






 
6



3
%1 


 
&


  
%





 '
3

31
/
/ 
'1

  

3
'
33' 
 
 
 
 3'




1 
<'
 



/ 3

 
313

 


3 

 
/ %  

 '

 

81
 
%1
'
 
/
 


' 1

*
3 1
 
3
 

 
 

/

3

'



 '


 *

3
 




3

+
,-#####7(



 13
)3

 
3

'
 


 '
 33' 

/
3 1
3




3 
 &'

 1


 



3  =


<& 




/


 %

prima facie
 
'


 

 

333

3 






'/'
 


 &



'




'
 




Prima facie


 '
1
  


  
  
 %'

 
 


 
3
 
%
3
  
'


6
 
'



 1

 

 9


 1


 



3

 



 1

/'

 
'






'

' 
3
 1
% 
% 
 3

 '





 
3 

'




  1

 
'

 

 1
% 


 

  
6=%
3



 


 &!" ' $!

(

!()$ !*+*,- ./
 
31
%   
'


/ 

8
%1



%

'

' 

 1
% 




3
'


 '


 1
% 
 





3
 
 
'






 
9 


'3


%/ ( >It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge sheet 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.

0 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."



'




''




 

*
 


 /
 
/
9 %


 !
"

 !#!$

3/ 
9  1

  




%
9
 9 
 


3


1 +$  !

23-
44. 
/5


 ( "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 pre arrest 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 third degree 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."

*
'


' 1




modus operand
 



3



9

9  1



 1
% 




 

 
3

'1 6/


3 
 
 
1'
%
 %
  
%


%

9




3


 
?

  "%  

  

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