Parveen Rathi v. State Of Haryana And ANR
! "# $%
&% ''''
()* +" ,% - " ./ +,% "-0 +" ,1+# $+ %2$"3% !
& & 25%!% "67 0*""(// & $25 83*7 %%9 ,:!
!% "7;";,+ <" % ;";,%"9%0*"+
&%/"%,3 %%%%"7 ;";,%5%5 = / %5"1!
/$+
1!
!/ >+# $ ? %" !5 !2>% 67$ 5%>+- % %5>$
%!
/- 2$>&5/ > ? %" !5!
!2> ++
> 5&5 5%2//5% 83 : !% 3!2>% +
(/ &5+ %(5 % % %!
5$6%$%! % (&5% >&5->%2$ / 5!% &>
? %" !5 5%!& )!%/> &% 2$ % $ % #/ !
* 9% %5%%- "Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar" (2014) 8 SCC 273 @! %2 55-%% !5% 2!>>%& - /%
!5%5$
5& 6 ? %"!5 >5$ /!% / 5!% >%>&52/ >A%% > 5 %$/
> %% & 5/5 % % - 5 %%!55/2$ 5%B5 >>3!2>% 5 55/5 5%!& 2$ >
> %%%!
/ /3 !& $% 5(/ ! +25 !5%2/ % 2$ !
# %5 %!5 & 5/ 3>& & %! 55/5 55% 83+- %!%
! "!
#$% &!'$ $ (# )' " $ * # ! *
'
+!
% , # !! #%&
-
(% !
%! . /0 ! 1&1 $ 2$)) # 3
&! " $$
!" ) $$ 43 '! #% )!# 0 )# $ & $ !"
!& " ! !
1 + 5", $ 1 ##
&
6 ! $ # ! 6 ! !1 & "
$ 11 " $ ) &
"
"
&
%%!%! %$
+7( 7,!$% ) !6 $ %%!%!
!&
' '( & "
$ ! !
1 + 5",
$ !$ +, %$)$ # $)0)# $ & $8 +,%!) 6 !##&9 $ * # ! !
% -
(% !
+/:;0, ! "!
#3 /<9/.9/0==:/0/0/
& &!$"
&> & ( $% !
+>9,)!# !. ! "!
# 1 "
! 1& )!# !"
!& " $ # ! 1 !%!&)!& ! "!
# ! + & $ (9!?,) %!$ & #%
! $* # !
*
'
!
% ) #% ///@</;00/:.& &/<9/.9/0+: & /<9/.9/0, %! " -
(% !
+/:;0, ! "!
# '
$ %!$ & " '
& & # $
& )!# & #%
)! )) !!%! & "$5 $& $ ($
)$ & #% "$)$ # $%!1&& (
&)# 1 #$
&$ ## !) ##2$ !%! $ (
&!# &
)) $% $ ( &! :
)
/ $ ( ##& $6 #% $( )!'
!&&
93 +3 )) !,) )!
!"$!
) !$ )!# %!+, &!
)!# & $ ( $& '!
#% & (1A% !"$!
) !
"$!
& "! )) $ ! (
%%!$& ) # ! 1 % %!8 ) !!#! # !"
!& "!%!$
$($ B #(!
& >"
& &1$! %)%
$) "
'!"
'! #% $(
&&1!
&!$"
&> & ( $% !+>9,)!) !!
1$"
&!$"
&>9
#%
& ( > & $ ( +@0:9 ,
&
#%
$ !! "
"& 1$"
& !!"
%! " )!# &
$ & % ! %)$ & #% )!# &
$!"$!& $
)) $ &! :)
/C'
$ )!# ! !&& !"$!
& #% ! " !
& %$ '! %!% !&8 % %! !"
!& "$# !$ (&$% &1 # !
"$!
&"!)) $ %) %
$ ) " ' !"
'!
#% $ (
&& 1! >9 $# +=/9 , $'
$)!# !"$!& %!$
)>9 $#+=/9 , $>9 $#2$ +=/9 , 3'
$ ( $ #$ $( !"$!& &!
3 ) '
+@;09 ,
+ 1$"
" )) !>9 $#+=/9 ,8 (
:0:::@044444 94 2 & !5 83%> !55/
25 5%/ >5 55/% 5 5%&55// !/%
5/!/ % >>% && & %!
/ 5 4
5 &2- %> >!%>55$
% %% % !% 5 & +67$ 5% +-2!%2$ / & 5 %> 525/& %/!% 5% 3% 55/% !%5/!/%2%! +:&55$5 // &!& !%%/ /!2 % !4 / /!2!! $&( 5!> / %/ / $% ! 4 +2/%>&+ / 25&& +$ / % >+ >$>! 2! >4 $!// 5+-
55/%5$2 !>A%+5%25!& 7 ,5 !/ 5 %" !5 % % /!> - / % >%5% +2!>%5
% 2&&%% -/ %!% / // & $ %(+ - + >& $ % 5 %$(/ > >"! >%5 %2/ !%( & $25+ &55$5/ !55/5 55%/ > 3-!5%2&& )!%/> #C25 "!& >!
5% &% !"#$%%&'(&)&&* 5 -
%!% D<; Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide
information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In State v. Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) "6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced 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 materials 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 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 a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19)
"19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation.
The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code."
, +
*!&)%%#%""-./0!&)%%#%"" !" #'%/1 %!# ! &&'
)
!$
% !
#!$ ( $&!& ' & " '
% !( '
$&
!
& "!
1 )
$
& E
! )
$&# $(%!%! #%! &&()! !!$$ # &
& !# $1 ( # ! "
$
$&1!
!) '
$ $
& !$ & $ $&!'!
$ $ 1( # & '(F ) F ! "! # " %%
( !!$ "#!
!
77. After referring t "%% > "5/&& !"##$
% "'( )) $*& * + & * ,- $
.$&
!&)%%#%""-./0!&)%%#%""!" # '%/1
& ! F &"# $
& ($!1 "
% !(
("!
& E %
!
#$
$ "
/ .$"'($+& &*,-"$
! "
/ .$"'($ 2 *!&)%&#/""
34.0!&)%&#&""!" #/-51 %!eme Court held as under : (SCC p. 386, para 19) "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 [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)"
Economic offences
78. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain,
(1998) 2 SCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."
15. In Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, Constitution Bench of this Court held that while considering an application for grant of pre-arrest bail the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:- "92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court."
35/ 2 5%& &55-+5 !/ - 5 %)!%/> 25+ !
>!>!5!5$+-/ % %!5 52 $/ 2 % $+ - +- ( $ %!5$>%$>
!%+ 5 %
%& >! 5$& 5% / & +: 5 + / $!&5%- 5%& &55-+ !
& :%!# )
%!// &
255$>&5%@!5$+5/ 2 !%%$>% > - 55/%%!
%
% !/ /+>(/!%5
/ 5!
/ >5/5% 3 - 2 + !
%%$> &+ 5%
! / : % $ & $ 25 )!!
, %/5$+ & &%%>% 01230204 ! &(/D % ED* & 25 ED*