High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/36333/2024dismissed

Balwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2024-08-31Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra5 pages

"#$#%& '('$ )

& *+,-,

###

,).+/&

%&'

( ( )

* +, ! - +, . /

29.05.2024 P.S. NRI, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 24 of the Immigration Act 0 ! +, ! ! 1

2 /

* )

-- 2

34555556-

) 7

! !

! )

35555556-

-- )

)

!* 7 345'050& ! 35555556-

9! !*

:* )

! 3;555556-

! <555556-

! !

! =555556- <55555 0555556- * 1

) !

* *

! ?

* )

! !

3554050% &

* ! 9 9 ! * )

. *

* !* !

!* - *

* * !

! &%555556-

9 ! *

. * !

! 9 : 9 * 4.

Status report has been filed by respondent-State. It is submitted therein and learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused Simranjit Kaur and others, had cheated the complainant by taking an amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- from him by inducing him with fraudulent and dishonest intention to send his wife and

himself to United Kingdom. Their visas were found to be fake. The petitioner was main facilitator of the subject crime as he received money on behalf of Simranjit Kaur on different occasions. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. No extra ordinary or sparing circumstance has even otherwise been made out for the purpose of extending benefit of bail to the petitioner. Hence, 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 in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have induced the complainant and his wife to England and on that pretext huge amount of money is alleged to have been extracted by the petitioner and co-accused in connivance with each other. Accused Simranjit Kaur is admittedly living abroad and the entire transaction of money which was taken in cash from the complainant has been facilitated through the petitioner. As such, it cannot be stated that he has no role to play in the commission of subject offences. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation in the matter and to elicit the truth about the manner in which conspiracy was hatched by the petitioner with the co-accused to cause wrongful loss of Rs. 34,00,000/- to the complainant, his custodial interrogation is must. Moreso, it is well settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are

0 extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8.

Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application if any is rendered infructuous.

,2 '('$ )