High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/35152/2024dismissed

Davinder Singh Alias Davinder Saini v. State Of Punjab

2024-08-02Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra5 pages

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

' +,-.- -

! !!# $$$ -*/,0' % & " '() ** + ", & -. &/ -. 1 &"

" 24.04.2024 Hariana, District Hoshiarpur 406 and 420 of IPC, 1860 2

" " & & -. / "& & , "& "

&& " /

34352323

/ / /& "&, & 7 && 2(3(2323 &"+ / / ", &"+ / 5( )' 23380 ! & &"+ / "

/ "&, "& , "+ (3392325 , / / 7/ + + :" ;&, ( 23 33380 "&

& 53 <' 23380 7

; = 33 33380 "& / / + "" 1/ ; ,

: & ! "

, + " ! -. " /, !

&" ", & * & !& 6 / "

5)34232' ( % & ,

, "& &&, " " 7 &, & "& &,

* % , , "& / &> "&

"& * , 2323 7/ + *?.059 " &"+ / " " / " / &, % "& " / " / " % "& "& , &, / "& /& "& "" = 33 33380 / "

/ &

+ "" "& &, / "&

&&, & " , + &" "& ! ." 7 . & "

; , . "& ; 7 , @ &&/.

Learned State counsel who has advance notice of the petition has submitted that he is ready to argue the matter. It is argued that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. He himself has not denied the factum of receipt of amount of Rs. 13,84,200/- from the complainant which had been transferred in his bank account through different modes and also some of which was given through cash. His own admission shows that he had received the amount of Rs. 13,84,200/- from

the complainant for sending his son abroad. He has failed to show as to how the aforementioned amount had been utilized by him. His custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of showing as to whether, he had deposited any amount with educational institution at Canada for the purpose of admission of the son of the complainant in any such institution. He has caused wrongful loss to the tune of huge amount of money to the complainant and the said amount is to be recovered from him. No extra ordinary or sparing circumstance has even otherwise been made out for the purpose of extending benefit of bail to the petitioner. @ &&/ 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

The petitioner is alleged to have received a sum of Rs. 13,84,200/- from the complainant for the purpose of sending the son of the latter abroad for the purpose of pursuing some educational course. This amount is stated to have been given to him during the outbreak of pandemic of COVID-19. The plea as taken by the petitioner himself is that he had agreed to give back an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as received from the complainant but the remaining amount had been spent for the purpose of admission of the petitioner. His custodial interrogation is must for the purpose of knowing that the said amount had actually been utilized for that purpose and had not been misappropriated by the petitioner. Moreso, power for grant of anticipatory bail is an extra ordinary power, which is to be

exercised sparingly in exceptional cases. It is well settled that judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation and attendant factors to decide, whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail since grant of pre-arrest bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Courts must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and that has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy which in my considered opinion do not exist in this case keeping in view the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, finding no reason to allow the petition, the same is dismissed.

. "& && " : " )

&" , " 1 -2 &"()(% *