Sandeep Kumar v. State Of Punjab

1-



   
    



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





   



  '  -. /0 /

/

 


 
 






 
 !
 
" #


$$$ 
/ ,1 .2' %
 



#

 
&'(

  !
)* +
 +

(,(-
.
 
/)01
+*   !
#


23

#4 23
)



# 
   11.07.2024 Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC (

 
 
# 


 

#


  
 


 
23

* 



  


#
 


5  
##**
 



#


 6 

 

  








*

!


 
 /%


#0
#*


 




 
 



  44#

7
##*

##



2-  

#


#

 
!



!

!
 *

* 
 
8
9:;
 


+ 
  
 #


 

<

=
*
 
!

 

#
 



₹9,,,,,>4
!
 

*
  
  *
#
  
 

 


 ₹9:,,,,,>4
%




#
* 

!



 

* 



 


 


!
 

!



+

3
%
!

* 

 


+*

!






#
#+



#
*

3

 
 
% *


 #


 
 
!



  


  *
 3
 

+*
 #
 

 #

 
!
!



# 

* 
!








 
2#*    

 
 *






 
!


 +



  


!
##**

 







+
!


 

 


₹9,,,,,>4

 !

+*
 





* 

23
 *

 !

 *




 



# 

* 

  !
#
 
 
 
!

? 

# 
#

@ *
  )* 
 

,:

9( (,(&

-

%
 



#
!



 *  



 * 
!
  #




##!
 # 
 





* 
##*
% 




 !

 
*


%



* 

 
7


3- 
+


7
#

2
.7 !1
 
 # 

 

A +

 



 
% 

# 

0
#!

 *




#
%


 


B


 4


#
=
 !




 

#

#
7

!



 *
7
# 

*


6  
)
!



 



%  

 



+
 


 
*

 

%  


*



#
!





 
## 4.

Status report has been filed by respondent-State, as per which, there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner who floated a company under the name of 'The Profit Planet'. He along with the coaccused induced the complainant and other victims to invest huge amount of money in the said company with a dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to them and to misappropriate that money and has not returned the same. His custodial interrogation is must for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. An amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- had been transferred by the complainant in the bank account of the petitioner and the petitioner is required to be interrogated to elicit information qua the said deposit. Accordingly, is it urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 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.

<

%


##*

 
 



#

 !






   


 

#*


4- 



##*

 
 

#

   
 
!


!
 

C%


#D
!
 * 

!






+

3
 *

 




+
!

%


  ##!
 

 23
!



 

 




+


 
!


7





 !





 


B


 4


#
2

 


 *
 
 *





# 

 
 




 
 !

 
!




4



 
* #
#


#

# 

*


3t 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 several other purposes. 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.

5opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

8.

It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9.

Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application if any is rendered infructuous.  3
/ 4    ( &) *+,