Harbhinder Singh v. State Of Punjab


 


 

 
   


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

 

  





  '
 01
*2
* 


*
   



 

 




 

*
/

314' !
 
 




"

 


#$%



&'
( )
)

%*%+
,

-&(

./


)

 '
"


01


 "23 01
( 4 "



 10.06.2023 Maqboolpura, Amritsar (Punjab) 420, 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act 2014 % 
 





 "
2
"'
"

'
 "






&"

"
""


 '
2
" 
2)

"'
2

 
2


"
)2
'




& 

 





2


 
5****63



 7

  








)
1 

 ) 




 "







   





4 "




" 





 '
2

'
"


1 

 ) 
2




"

'

 

 
 
'
  



 


 
 
8


 7  
 

)""

 
"

 " 9'
2
 
'

"





)

 "
4 '

:

 

"


 
2
 

 

 
 

 


 7

  



; 



 )
2)


7 '







) 


4 "


"







1 

 ) 




'
 

3


2



)

<


 
 
01
2




1

 












 2'

  

 
 


 " 



 3 
"
 

"


 "

 ;


 
2 
2
 
 

*$ *# %*%# + !
 
 




"

'
 



 



 
'

 "






" "'
 " 
 




" 
"'






 

  






"





2)


2










"




2
"'


)


2 








""





%****63





&"

  %*%%

"







(


%*%%





 

 2)


" 3


 
8



2


"

 "

"'

 9


 



'
 
2


(


'


 






 "
  


 9



  '





  =


 





 





"


".

4.

Status report has been filed by respondent-State. It is submitted therein and learned State counsel has argued that on the pretext of sending the victims Sandeep Singh, Bablu and Rahul to Jordan, for doing packaging work, the petitioner had induced them to part with a sum of Rs. 60,000/- and after receiving the same, he had manipulated fake VISAs and tickets and handed over the same to the victims. He is a person of criminal antecedents as one case under Section 379-B of IPC is pending against him. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough investigation of the matter by the police as well as for effecting recovery of the money taken by him from the victims. !  


 

 
 




""2

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.

6.

The petitioner is alleged to have induced the complainant and

 other two victims to give a sum of Rs. 60,000/- each to him on the pretext that he would send them to Jordan and would arrange packging work for them. He is alleged to have handed over fake VISAs and tickets to them. The allegations against the petitioner are quite grave in nature. It is well settled proposition of law that c "
  





 9"

"'
 " 


9 




2

2 ""



2

 "

 


 
"

'
 "

 


 
  "
  
1

"


 

 






 3 
"

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. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

  7.

1

2


"


 

 

""

 


7 









8.

 
 




  
  

" 

'


 











5

*
6




( )
*+ ,-./