Vikram Bakshi v. State Of Haryana
!!"
""
"
"
#$ ""$
"$%&$'
()*(+,-./01
!
"# !$!% &
'
)* # %%$ + $, !$!, -.!/ % . / %%-.%/ %% % $.!/ "# &
( 1
#
' 2 1
# .3 4/
!
'
)*
4 "At present a local application no. 1550L dated 02.12.2024 and subsequent investigation complaint no. 0.3578 dated 12.05.2025 and order has been received at Bajaria Dak Police Station from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar to register a case and conduct an investigation. The application is presented as follows: To, Mr. S.H.O Sahib, City Police Station, Yamuna Nagar Subject About selling property
by fraudulently creating a property ID. It is requested that I am Yogesh Sharma, son of Raj Kumar, resident of 1803 Sec8, Faridabad. I had taken a stay from the court on my property which is in Tagore Garden, House No.16, near Bypass Road, Yamuna Nagar. Vikram and Vishal fraudulently created a new property ID and sold my property worth crores of rupees at a low price to another party on 5112024 with Vacancy No. 5442. In Court, in Case No.473/2024, a stay was obtained from the honorable court on 73 2024. Vikram or Vishal Bakshi created a new property ID from this property ID IKFMM848, and sold my property to Shashi and Shubham Sethi at low prices. Please take strict action against them. SD Yogesh Sharma Yogesh Sharma son of Raj Kumar Sharma resident of House No. 1803 Sector8 Faridabad Tehsil and District Faridabad Mobile No. 9999180100 "
% -21(21*-2 23(04)+-+10(5(1*1*-2(6 5 ( 1
(('
1(
(
7
( 6
1 $+ $% %$!
( '
8 3
&
& & '
1
1(
(
( '
8 & (('
6
*
8 1 1
8('
(& (('
'
&
( 2 & 6 &
5 (
1
1
(
& ( 6 '
(
'
& 3
1 ( 1
'
1 (
('
# 1
23(04)+-+10("141( :
&
1 2;
'
( 4 7
' 1 &
4 ( ('
6(((('
( '
8 3 &
&
'
! "
# $
%& ' %
((&
( & '
11 (('
& 1( &
( 1
1
((&
11
6((
'
1
) 6
(
& ('
(
& 24)7,*, ) ( ('
(
4
6((('
(
( & '
8 1 &
&
'
( (&
'
)2
6((
' 6 &
((& (( 6
(
1
# &&& ( ( ( 6(
11 '
( ('
1
& &
1( &
)1 1
((& 1 &
& ((
(1 '
&
1 1( (
6(
' 1 (
& ( ( 3 76
6(&
6 & '
3 '
1
3 6 6((4
(
&
( .6 4 &(
(/
1 1
prima facie
& 3
(
( ('
6
1&
1( & ( (('
1( & 1 1 ( 1
(& (41
(& 1 (
7< 1
(
1('
& 8
( (
& &
'
1 &
&
'
( 1
( 3 &1
(64 =It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that chargesheet 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.
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.
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." & (( &&
(
6 3
!
"# 16
3 '
3 3
1
!"#$$
#
%
(
4 "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 prearrest 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 thirddegree 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."
(8*,*-2 ) (&
6
& 8 '
1
1 (
7
1 76 (
('
&
(
6 &"$'
Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No