Vicky Sharma v. State Of Haryana And Another
!" #$%$ &'( ) * +, -.
' /0121
1
! "
# ! $
%! &"
' &
( )))
1 .304' $ *" +,( # & (-(. / 0# 12 & * "34 *"!5 34 6
" 17.09.2024 City Tohana, District Fatehabad 120-B, 370(3), 406, 420 and 506 of IPC, 1860 (
34 !
& * !
" "* " ' "
""&& "! "
(-(+ " * "
& " " 7( -- ---85
$ " "
& -+ -9 (-(+ :
9 -- ---85! & & "
$ " " "" ! *" *
& * "
&! *& "" " *;&
** &#"
3"& * " ! "
! ! ! & "
5
*!
"
" "
& #"
"
& 7( -- ---85 *& * " " *
"
< " & *
9 .- ---85! * *
$
5 + -- ---85 *
* #"
"
! ! & *
= -- ---85! "& ! * " * * ! * " * !
# ""&& 5 "
""& " & "
&
& 34 &
& * &
" 5
* "!! *> " " '& 3 * (= -?
(-(+
.
$ *"* & &*" * "" "
& & *@@" * & "&*
" * ""& " " ""& ! & 5 "
4 & " "
! * & #"
A" $ " "*
& & *
.- ---85! ;!! *
$ " ""&
& & ;&& * * &
.- ---85 & * " 5 "
& A *
$ &
* ""! 4.
Per contra, learned State counsel has argued in terms of the status report that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner, who in connivance with the co-accused had duped the
complainant for substantial amount of money and caused wrongful loss to him on the pretext of ensuring the settlement of the brother and cousin of the complainant in Russia and their safe abode therein and also on the pretext of providing job to them. No extra ordinary or sparing circumstance has even otherwise been made out for the purpose of extending benefit of bail to the petitioner. $ &
* ""!
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.
As per the allegations, the petitioner in conspiracy with the coaccused had induced the complainant to part with a huge amount of money by giving allurement that his brother and cousin would be sent abroad and settled there. After the family members of the complainant had been sent to Belarus, the petitioner is alleged to have conversation with them and is further alleged to have connived with the co-accused for extracting more money on the pretext of making arrangements for their stay and their other expenditure. He is alleged to have received a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- from the complainant and his family members and criminally misappropriated the same. The allegations against him are serious in nature. For conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner 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 for several other purposes also. 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.
It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8.
Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application if any is rendered infructuous.
5
1 6 ( ) * +, -.