Harjinder Singh @ Raju v. State Of Punjab
!"
"
"# $%&$'
()*+,
"#$ %& $'$(
) )
*
+,- & $( '$ '# $'$"
( #."/ ((0.$/ ((0.(/ ((1 ((# ("2 (3 .$/ 0 .$/ %& $'$( % !55 5
$ *
+,-
6 'Statement of Daljit Singh S/o Harbhjan Singh R/o H. No. J 18/1001, Bhai Manj Road Near Railway crossing a Kot Mit Singh, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar, aged about 46 years, Mobile No. 8728042143.
Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and retired from Army in 2017. That I was in need of a car for my domestic use and I wanted to purchase a second hand car. That on dated 08/07/2023 | talked to Harjinder Singh @ Raju S/o Sukhdev Singh R/o H. No. 20, Street No. 15 Kotmit Singh, Bhati Nunj Sahib Road who is my neibouror and working as a dealer of vehicles that I am in need of car. Then he told me that there is a INNOVA Car of 2018 model in a very good condition, if you want then tell me. Then I told Harjinder Singh ® Raju that I want see the car. Then in front of me called Harjagdeep Singh Grewal @ Deepak S/o Manjit Singh R/o H. No. 8479, Street No.
Kot Baba Deep Singh, Amritsar and they took me to Amritsar Rural Police Line, Daburji, where Sandeep Singh R/o Vairowal Road Jandiala Guru Amritsar met them, who handed over the key of INNOVA Car No. PB11CH4073, Colour Brown to Harjagdeep Singh. I liked the Car and our deal was settled for on 15,000,00/ (15 Lakh). They told me that there is a loan of 8,00,000/ (8 Lakh) pending on the car and we will get NOC after clearance of loan. That I came in their words and I along with my friend Bikramjeet Singh S/o Iqbal Singh R/o H. No. 2666,. Street No. 23, New Kot, Amritsar went to the houses of Harjinder Singh Raju and Harjagdeep Singh and gave Rs, 14,00,000/ in cash Jatinder Singh @ Saabi S/o Manjit Singh R/o Sultanwind Road, the friend of Harjagdeep Singh Grewal was already present in house of Harjagdeep Singh Grewal.
Then they handed over me R.C No. PB11 CR4073 on which Chasi No. MBJAAEM2007144307 and engine No. IGDA244096 was written Car registered on the name of Simranjeet Dhillon S/o Harmeet Singh R/o Shekupra, Patiala. When I demanded NOC from them then they told me that NOC will come in few days and as and when NOC has been delivered to you then you will pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1 Lakh and at that time we will provide you sale affidavit and other documents of the Car. So I took INNOVA Crysta car No. PB11CR4073 of 2.8 Z in colour brown from them.
- back but still they neither provide me complete documents of the Car nor returned my money. Then I doubted about the fake number of the Car. I checked the fancy number of the Car and found there MBJAAEM2007905991018 Chasis No was written on it. Then I compared the chassis No with number given on RC. There is lot of difference among both of them. Then I got worried that this is a stolen Car. I told to Harjagdeep Singh Grewal and Harjinder Singh Raju to take their car back and return my money. But they did not return my money. Although they started filling false complaint against me and started giving me life threats.
Then I investigated about the car by myself and got checked the details of Chassis Number on the Car then It is found that its original registered No is PB65AU9990 which was registered in the name of Jagroop Singh S/o Kirpal Singh R/o H. No. 448, Sector 2 Mundi Kharar, Mohali. That Harjinder Singh @ Raju, Harjagdeep Singh Grewal and Sandeep Singh under their conspiracy sold me a Car with fake number plate and whose Chassis number was tempered and committed fraud and cheating with me of Rs. 14 Lakh and given me the forged RC document. That I am delivering my car and its RC to you. That action to be taken against them. Statement is written and heard. Amajeet Singh, P.S B Division, Amritsar, dated 02.08.2024. Today 1 ASI along with ASI Sharanjeet Singh No. 3635/ASR, CT Rashpal Singh No.
930/ASR, HC Surjinder Singh 2598 were present in the police station. Daljeet Singh S/o Harbahjan Singh came to police station and got his statement recorded which was got typed and print and read to him. Who after finding the statement to be correct signed it in English. Daljit Singh handover the INNOVA Crysta Car with No. PB11CR4073 colour brown and RC of the Car. Separate Memo was prepared taken into the custody of the police. Chassis Number was checked of the above Car. Chassis No. Of Car was MBJAA3EM200790599108 and its MAJAAEM2007144307 given on the RC.As per the statement of Daljit Singh and my investigation it is found the offence U/s 318 (4), 336 (2), 336 (3), 337, 338, 349, 351 (2), 61 (2) BNS.
Grewal and Sandeep Singh statement is sent dasti for registration of FIR. Head Munshi is requested to registered FIR and original statement be sent back to him. Special reports be sent to Senior Officers.'
( (.,$.,&(./ .
0$+1%'
('
,+$ 2$,&,&(.$3 7
*
*
5 6 8
9 9
5 9
:
5 ,
)9 6 8
9
*
5
5 ; * *
* 55
, * 6
9
5 5 *
5
:
*
& 5
.
0$+1%'
('
,+$ 3$/2(.4$.,5 ,1,$
5
< 9
* 5
55 )9 5
55 9 5
55
*
:
.1%6/&/
*
)* + * 5 5 :
*
5 - "
5
5*
= 5
5
5 9
*
modus operandi 5
55 5
*
* 5
*
*
8>
5
5*
9 :
*
*
5
*
5 = 5
96 ?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. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie 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."
,
9
9 =
"(# ! !
59 = *
=
=
5
!" #$$
#
%
6 "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
7 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."
, 9 )
* :
, 5
5 * 5 89
5
*
5
9
"9
Sham Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No