High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/51924/2024dismissed

Kamlesh v. State Of Haryana

2025-02-11Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil11 pages

### "#$

% & '() * " + & ),)- "

% ./0 '12 ,3 ,( ),)'

4& 53

& '), '16 '1( '63 3),5* /

+ *%%

& "

& ./0 & 5 'To Commissioner of Police, Headquarters Sector21C, Faridabad, Haryana. Regarding taking immediate action on the subject complaint. ReferenceComplaint against Mr. Manish (Mob. 8570848485) son of Mr. Deshraj, Mrs. Kamlesh (Mob.

9812035769), Mrs. Sonam (Mob. 8930744195), Mr. Ashish 4 (Mob. 9034682886) son of Deshraj and Deshraj (Mob. 8160247505) resident of Gali No. 10 Adarsh Colony, Palwal regarding cheating and fraud, to Police Station Cyber Crime Cell Ballabhgarh. Sir, in the above context, I Yashpal Singh Tanwar son of Sabliyan Singh House No. 1247, Sector 64, Faridabad, Haryana have given a complaint dated 02.04. 2024 to Cyber Crime Cell Ballabhgarh. Sir, in this case my life savings have been swindled and cheated by the culprits. Therefore, I request you to please ensure action in this case as soon as possible. The gist of the case is as follows that I, Smt. Kamlesh w/o Mr.

Deshraj Mahawal, along with Shri Deshraj Mahawal and his two sons Manish Mahawal and Ashish Mahawal, have connived with each other and usurped my life savings under a preplanned conspiracy. I have retired from the post of Superintendent Engineer from Haryana Irrigation Department. I had retirement money. After my retirement, I started getting calls from people such as insurance consultants, property dealers and investment consultants who started giving me different advice to invest my money. One day I received a call from Manish whose mobile number is 8570848485 and he told me that he is working in Bharat Electronic Ltd. as a scientist. He also sent me his appointment letter on WhatsApp and said that these days I am working on some secret mission with Mr.

Ajit Doval NSA on deputation due to which our life is in danger and to compensate for this the government gives us property at subsidized rate and I have taken a 1100 yard villa and a showroom in the newly built BEL staff colony whose payment has to be made in installments and I have a 350 sq. yard DLF villa in the name of my younger brother Ashish and 1 (Manish) will pay its installments too and he told that I get tenders of upto 57 thousand crores at my seat due to which I have become well acquainted with big builders due to which I have taken two shops from M3M people in Cosmopolitan Mall Gurgaon at a low rate and the registry of the above property and He sent us the photo through his Whatsapp so that we could believe him.

After this, I kept getting calls from him on Whatsapp saying that you can become copartner by investing your money in the property I told you about. This property will remain in my name for 5 years and your name will be added in the coborrower category, and I (Manish) will pay its installments in the accounts but after 5 years the property will be transferred to your name and after that you will pay the installments yourself.

% told you about will be transferred to your name and showed all the property papers through video call and sent their copy on Whatsapp. 1. In March 2019, Manish said that Adani is building a new colony on Sector 63, Golf Course Extension Road. I (Manish) will get you a 350 sq. yard house with 4 floors. The total cost of which will be Rs. 3,43,00000/ and you will have to pay an installment of Rs. 78,888 per month for 30 years. You will face difficulty in paying installments only for 23 years till the construction is completed. After that you will start getting rent and there will be no problem. Manish sent the allotment letter issued by the government on WhatsApp.

!"# $

%&!'( $)

* +

,& -. /0 00 1*

( *2

" * , * !-3-4 + 2 * * 21 -. 11 *

21/" 1 1

/ 5-

) 5-- * * )$

)$)1

* 1* 2 21

- " - -- , 6 '( - - , 6 # - - , 6 1 + -7-

-!-"- --

%&!

--)7

-!-"- --)

-!-"- $-)-

-!-"- 7--

-!-"- --

-!-"- )--

%&!

* +

1 ,

* +

- /1

* */0

( *, , 6 2

, , -0

1 1 5

* /$ /- * 2 )/ /

* 1 - )--$.;* -- .;* )--.;* 7- -$7

!8!'( -7-

-!-"- 1 + -7-

%-&-!-'( - /

/0 6 ( 21,& .

16 %

/ * * -//;

< / * + *

- * *1

+ "

1 1 1 + 21 .

1 * 2

/ + - 7- 0 1 64 !1

( *= 1:

* %

6-4-

+ *0 " + -.

75- " 1.$$-$)5- -

* * 2 -/7)/$ /*1 *1*

1 + - $$ ;

* + 2 *

-. 1

-/ / 2 * 1 64 21 21 1 1 - /1 + 2

- /

/ 2 1(

2 1

- --

!-8-!-'( 7--

,-!-- 1 + --7

,-!-"-'( --

%-&-!-'( --

-!-"- --

!-8-!-'( --

%-&-!-'( --

-!-"-# $- /0 1 11 2 21 1 1 + 1,&1 % / 11 1 - 1/

> ./ * 0 1 / =".

0 -.

> ./

/ 1

7< *

/ * * 7//$/ 12

1+ * / *

**1

1 +

** * -:

**11 **1 *1

1 - )--

-!--# --

!-8-!-'( --

-!-"-# --

-!-4- 1 + )-7-

-!-"- 1 + )-7-$

!-8-!-'( -7-

-!-"- 1 + $;;79 $

?10 * "

10-0

/.**1&-)7, !

/% - .

/ " +

* + 1-"* 12 * 1 1

/ * /21

1 * /

1 + + /

* 1 *- ->

0-=

/6 (/.

21 + 12 11/

1 1 / +

+* 1

-#1 * 1 * -!11 1

1 + -0-6 ( =

+ +

/ +

11 21 -. /

1*1 *1

+ @

- , * 21

@* 21-> "* *

* 00/.

,&/.

64/ 1 0 @

--/0 6 ( 1 21 ",

+ /11 2

2 0 *

0@ 1-. /6 ( *

0 @,!"51

!34

+ 1 - . / !34@ * 1 A

> . *

2 -@8 * "6 *

0 @ B. 91 C

" 36 @ A

* 0 *

-. + 2

-> "

9*1 + * 0 +

-> "+

"1 * ,!"/36

0 *

" 1 21 9

" + 21 + > .B. 91 C

1* " &8, +

2 8*2 /

9 * 1> . * *

B. 91 C

+ &+

- > "

1 **

0 !34

* * *

20 *1 6 (/ =

2 .1

* *111 - > "1 1 21/" +

2 * 1 0

1 11

1* *-" /

" -:

* /" 1 * +

2,2 , !

2 * 1 1

* "

*A 2 * /" + 2

-. " (1* - 1 .* # #

2 :1 -$/ *7/

%* 2+ * 1 2

*A 2 * -*

-)-/ * *

0 ,2 , !

2 %*

/ * *

-$- 0 ,2 ,

2 -8 ** -7

-)-1

*/7$/7)/$/!"%, %* .

& 2

* "

2 * .

0 -. * * * 2

* 2 1

1 + -6D #8",3

.&6 "8 . " !:.

!:D :.& ;!6/ 0-&- -E

% &%

%%"

% /

%% %%

% %& &%

%%"

.& &

% "

8 % &% % 9

& %

%%" & %% % %% &% &

% %% & ),3: ./0 8 % ),)' "

& ./0 & / % &

&% "

8%% 8 ; / % % &% "

%%8

(

% &%

&% %

& %"

%% % 8 5&

/ 8 & & & 8 "

% "

& 8 % &

% 8 8%"

/ % % & &% % % " & 8 & 8

8 !8 8

& 8 & & !< % &

! "

" #$##%&%'()*+$ %

& &% 8 =&

% &%

& "

% % & % 4 ;& &

%85 >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."

8 4"

4 4%

& , & -.(/00+)+/*+,

% &5

"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 %"

%%"

% 8 8%"

8 8 "

%& %"

# $

& '

& $ '

$ "

? 8

%% %&

&% %"

=& % "

% !8

% %"

% % %

& ;& &

8 %8 #

sham Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No