High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/52940/2024dismissed

Sukhpreet Singh @ Sukhu @ Sukh v. State Of Punjab

2024-10-23Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil7 pages

$$$$

!"#$%!! & '( ) & *+ , -. /(/$(/(#"$#-$($$(% $#+ !-%0/1 2+!341"$.0+! 4 " 5

*+ ) "Statement of Neetu alias Pinky daughter of Charan Singh son of Niranjan Singh resident of Jeevan Singh Nagar, Street No. 6, Ward No. 3, Kotakpura at present resident of near Doda Sweet Opposite Street, Street No. 2, Kotakpura District Faridkot aged about 25 years mobile No. 98729-87355 stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and we are 5 siblings. We are 3 sisters and 2 brothers. I am eldest among all and my father is doing the work of labour and my mother remained ill. My marriage was solemnised about 7 years ago in the year 2017 with Amritpal Singh son of Chamkaur Singh resident of Bathinda and from the said marriage I am having 2 children.

But due to temperamental differences between us, the matrimonial case has been discharged by the Women Cell, Bhatinda with our mutual consent. As I am having two children with me, therefore, it is very difficult to meet both the ends and therefore I came to Bus Stand Moga in search of work and there I got Mobile No. of Arashdeep Singh son of Pavittar Singh resident of Bhinderkalan Patti Sariyan, District Moga whose Mobile No. is 96531-04152, who called me inside the bus stand after finding me standing and asked me from where you belongs and during the conversation he took my mobile number and thereafter, when returned to my village Kotakpura then for 10/15 days talked with Arsh being a friend and he told me on telephone that he is having a hotel Darshan at Bhaghapurana Chowk.

He also ensured that he will provide me a job of manager at his hotel and therefore, I joined on the post of Manager at hotel Darshan on the asking of Akashdeep where for one month Arshdeep got work of manager from me and thereafter, Arshdeep told me that he wants to marry me and therefore, after believing the words of Arshdeep, I started living in the hotel, after taking me in his confidence he made physical relations with me and also given me one intoxicant tablet on which I told Arshdeep that due to tablet I feel anxiety and feel headache despite that he used to give me one tablet brought by his friends Garry and Harman and told me that after taking this medicine, you will! not feel headache.

then they will put your video on internet. Thereafter I under fear made physical relations with different persons and during this time because Arshdeep aiso used to made physical relations on daily basis and due to this I got pregnant twice. Thereafter, the friends of Arshdeep namely Garry and Harman has given abortion tablets to me in drinks. Thereafter, they have manhandled with me on 05.02.24 and thereafter I called on 112 helpline and informed them everything. Lateron we have entered into a compromise and Arshdeep assured me that he will solemnise marriage with me. But now Arshdeep Singh and his friend Garry alias Gagan and Harman started threatening me that they will eliminate me or else return to your home at Kotakpura leaving the Hotel and then on 25.02.24 in the morning at 10:00a.m. S.I.

Baljinder Singh told me that a complaint has been received against you at Police Station Mahna from Garry Alias Gagan and you have to come present in the police station at 4:00p.m. When at 4:00p.m. I went to Police Station Mehna, Arashdeep and Harman came and there is verbal altercation took place between us and thereafter, I returned to Hotel Darshan where they came to follow me at hotel and started assaulting me and when I tried to ran away from the spot than one boy namely Sukhu called me at hotel and manhandled with me during that time they have switched off the CCTV camera of the hotel and also snatched my phone and I am having my purse with me in which there was Rs.15,000/- and keys of almirah.

After snatching the purse from me they started committing theft of the money from almirah which were about one lakh Rupees are there and as I am all alone and they were four persons. they have beaten me and forcibly made me to drink Phenyl and at that time my friend Karamjit Kaur came at the spot and: after seeing her all the above named accused ran away from the spot. My friend Karamjit Kaur after making arrangement of the vehicle removed me to Civil Hospital, Moga and got me admitted there where I remained admitted from 25.02.24 to 01.03.2024 and thereafter I got myself discharge with my free will and went to the house of my friend Karamjit Kaur and today on 02.03.2024 got recorded my statement after visiting the Police Station. On these allegations the present FIR got registered."

6 & & & &! /-/#(/(#

& -8/8(/(# 9 :5 , $; $/8/(/(#

"$.0+!* & *+ "$.0+!

+& & !!<

& , = ' !

5: &

& )" 6 " !

& >&

! 9 & & ! + & *+

" $#-$($$(% $#+ !

& && "$.0+!

& ?

' ' )

9?&" ! ! " # $#%&'(')* $+,-& &

7&&

& !

& ) @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.

& 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."

&" #$%!! & " !. ( /0*11-+- $$,-2 ) "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 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."

' 9

& & !

sham Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No