Gurpinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another
!
!
!"
!
#$%#&
'()*+
$%& # # ' '
( )*+
!%$ ,- !! ,.,%
$./ !,.01 *# !&2.
$!!
*#
#(
3 4
, (
)*+
0 '"At this time, it is recorded that application No.2133/5D/Police Station Samana dated 23.11.2023 submitted by Tarun Sodhi son of Sh. Bhupinder Sodhi resident of Village Sauwal, District Gurdaspur, M/s Mahadev Roadlines Siliguri West Bengal Mobile No. 85589.40635 against Gurpinder Singh son of Kulwant Singh resident of Rajgarh
alias Saundhewal, Karanvir Singh son of Sucha Singh resident of Jatta Patti Samana, Lucky son of Sucha Singh resident of Dera Patwarian Da Samana, Sukhwinder Singh son of Mahinder Singh resident of Dhainthal and Amarjit Singh son of Meer Chand resident of Garhi Mohalla Samana (Kabadiya Bhawanigarh Road Samana), under Sections 407, 120.B IPC, written by SI Baljit Singh 2475/Ptl. Police Station City Samana, for the purpose of registration of case handed over to me SI. The contents of the same are as follows, "To, The SHO, Police Station City Samana. Sub: Application against 1) Gurpinder Singh son of Kulwant Singh resident of Village Rajgarh alias Saundhewal Tehsil Samana District Patiala vehicle No. PB11BY8045 (Mobile No. 98650.00564, 79018.00546), 2) Karanvir Singh son of Sucha Singh resident of Jatta Patti Samana District Patiala (Mobile No. 62845.52208), 3) Lucky son of Sucha Singh resident of Dera Patwarian Da Samana (Mobile No. 79869.11632),
4) Sukhwinder Singh son of Mahinder Singh resident of Dhainthal Tehsil Samana, 5) Amarjit Singh son of Meer Chand resident of Garhi Mohalla Samana, (Kabadiya Bhawanigarh Road Samana), for committing cheating by selling the loaded scrap and usurping advance of vehicle's rent i.e. Rs. 19,56,026/. + 1,30,000/., Sir, it is submitted that I Tarun Sodi son of Sh. Bhupinder Sodi, am resident of Village Sauwal, District Gurdaspur and I am running transport in the name of M/s Mahadev Road Lines at Siliguri West Bengal. On dated 30.10.2023, through my transport, the above Gurpinder Singh son of Kulwant Singh in his vehicle No. PB11BY8045 had come, by loading the scrap. The said scrap was filled from Firm Assam Enterprises Barpetta (Assam) and it was to go to firm of Siliguri namely Akansha Traders. The total weight of the scarp was 25 tonne.
The total cost whereof comes out to be Rs. 7,96,500/. The same was dispatched through Bill No. 12 and in this regard, the above Gurpinder Singh had also received advance of Rs.60,000/. as rent of the vehicle. 2) The said vehicle was to reach Siliguri after four days. However, when after passing of four days, the vehicle did not reach to the party, then Party.
, I contacted vehicle's owner Gurpinder Singh on his mobile number and then he stated to me that his vehicle has been caught by the finance persons and that he, after arranging the money, by getting released the vehicle from the finance persons, will get the goods handed over to the concerned party but he did not reach. 3) Similarly, the above stated Karanvir Singh and Lucky in their vehicle No. PB11BR7747, through my transport, from Assam Enterprises Barpetta, by loading 31 tonne 160 kilogram scrap, through bill No.13 dated 07.11.2023, had gone to Siliguri and the total cost of the said goods was Rs.10,29,526/. and advance rent was taken as Rs. 70,000/..
When the said vehicle also did not report to the party timely, then the party made a phone call to me and then I contacted on phone with Karanvir Singh and Lucky and they stated that their vehicle tyre has burst and that after getting the tyre replaced, they will make reach the goods to the concerned party. But the above stated persons did not make reach the goods to the above concerned party and thereafter they even switched off their mobiles. 4) That thereafter I made inquiry at my own level and upon reaching at Samana I came to know that the above two vehicle persons, after having conspiracy with Sukhwinder Singh son of Mahinder Singh resident of Dhainthal Tehsil Samana further sold the said goods to Amarjit Singh Kabadia son of Meer Chand resident of Mohalla Samana.
In this manner, the above stated persons in connivance with each other have committed cheating of Rs.19,56,026/. with me. Therefore by submitting the application, it is prayed that for commission of offence of cheating by the above persons, FIR be registered against them and my scrap be got recovered from them to me or the cost of the scrap and the advance taken i.e. Rs. 19,56,026/. and money taken as advance i.e. Rs. 1,30,000/. be got recovered to me. I will be very thankful to you. With thanks. Yours faithfully, Sd/. Tarun Sodi son of Sh. Bhupinder Sodi M/s Mahadev Road Lines Siliguri West Bengal Mobile No. 85589. 40635 Dated: 23.11.
% '-+#-+%'-.
- /#*0$& '& +*# 1#+%+%'-#2 5 3 ( 3 3
( 6 ( 3 %. !. ,.,% $ 7
3 * 3 3 ( ,% !! ,.,%
)*+ 6
,- !! ,.,% ( ,.
( 6 8 3
* 33 ( * 3( '
3 ( " 3 6 ( 33 3 6 8 6( 3 6 3 96 3 (
)*+ :
3
- /#*0$& '& +*# 2#.1'-3#-+4 +0+#
3 ;
3 6 6 '
6 6 6 6 + !-72...;0 83( 9 3 <
6( $ (
-0$5.%.
1 3(
3 3 3 6
3 6 < prima.
facie
$./ !,.01 $!!
*# 3
( < <
3 ( 6
3 ( 3 (
( 6 6 3 3 3 ( 3 '
3
3 3 6
= 1 = 3 '6 3 < 6 3 3
3 " 3
6 3 3 9>
3
3( 6 < (
( 3
( 3 8
3 60 ?It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge.sheet 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."
* 6 6 8
$%& # # 36 8( 8 8
3 !" #$$
#
%
0 "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
6 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 pre.arrest 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 third.degree 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."
* 6 ' ( < " * 3 3 ( 3 96 3 (
3 6 6
!8
Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No