High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/41617/2024dismissed

Harsimran Singh Virk v. State Of Haryana

2024-09-19Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra6 pages

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

' 01*2*

* !"

# $$$

*/314' & " '() * )+), - .* /0

&" 12&"!3 12 4 " 18.06.2024 Jhansa 406, 420, 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Sections 10 and 24 of Emigration Act )

! "!& & "5&6 "!

"" 6"

! 7 !

"5&6

" ! 3

!# 6! & "& " 8 '9+++++:3 ;& &

" 3

& 3

3 6"

<* "

" 3

= >9+?+++:3 "; '9++++:3! &

% "35&6! & 4&!

"" ! ;

4& & ! & " ; " >')+++++:3 &

% &

2 " "35&6 ?)++++:3 % "% & ! "" &

!% "!" ! "! ! ""&

2& & "5&6% 3

5 "5&6& & & ! "" &

" " 12 ! " &"& " 5 6 !

! +>+()+)' , &"&

& " &""" 7 & " & & "5&6 & & "

& "

" 4&% " & 12%

!! !

& "! & "" " "" " ""

"! != ' 2 '9++++:3

& "3

&!" !

)+++++:3 & "7 &

% >+)'@

" 7 & % &=& &" 5.

Status report has been filed by respondent-State. It is submitted therein and it is argued by learned State counsel that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner who extracted an amount of Rs. 15,07,000/- from the complainant Jasbir Kaur for sending her ward to USA. His custodial interrogation is required for thorough investigation of the matter by the police. No extra ordinary or sparing circumstance has even otherwise been made out for the purpose of extending benefit of bail to the petitioner. Learned State counsel while referring to Annexure R-2 which is copy of Whatsapp chat that is stated to have taken place between the petitioner and the complainant, has submitted that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. A perusal of this chat reveals that the same is with reference to sending son of the complainant abroad as well as transaction of money.

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 extracted an amount of Rs. 15,07,000/- from the complainant Jasbir Kaur on the pretext of sending her son abroad. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- was paid to him through RTGS. An amount of Rs.

6 2,00,000/- has since been returned by the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 13,07,000/- is still to be paid. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as innocent complainant has been duped of her hard earned money on being induced that the petitioner and co-accused would send her son abroad. 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 to the complainant, his custodial interrogation is must. 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 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.

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. 9.

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

*8 ( )*+ ,-./