Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 December, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172113
CRM-M No.64459 of 2024 -1-
110
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.64459 of 2024
Date of Decision: 19.12.2024
Pardeep Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. G. P. S. Ghuman, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.74, dated
04.10.2024, under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B of IPC, registered at
Police Station Ladhuwal, District Police Commissionerate Ludhina
(Annexure P-1). Further prayer has been made for exempting the
petitioner from filing certificate copies of Annexure P-1 to P-5 and
allowing to place on record true translated/downloaded photocopies of
Annexures P-1 to P-5.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that initially the inquiry
was conducted on the complaint filed by Vinod Kumar, Depot Manager.
It has been alleged that the complainant was manager of the company and
the pesticides was supplied to the Cooperative Societies in Punjab
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172113
CRM-M No.64459 of 2024 -2-
through Markfed. Pardeep Singh Kooner i.e. the petitioner was the Field
Officer, who had committed the breach of trust by way of fraud and
cheating lakhs of rupees. As per inquiry report, Pardeep Singh
misrepresented the officials of Markfed through the drivers of vehicles
hired by him. The pesticides, instead of being deposited in the company,
the same were illegally loaded through hired vehicles at the godown of
Punjab Sales (Pickles) Hindustan Pesticides Samrala owned by Amit
Gupta. Both the accused i.e. Pardeep Singh (petitioner) and Amit Gupta
in connivance with each other further sold these pesticides to Sushil @
Shila and Sahil, owners of shops of Punjab Agro and Punjab Agricultural
Centre, Vegetable Market, Kharar through different vehicles. Thus the
FIR was registered for taking action against the culprits. Apprehending
his arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana praying for the grant of anticipatory bail.
However after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in the same, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissed the petition filed
by the petitioner vide his order dated 04.12.2024. Hence the petitioner is
before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the
grant of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
before this Court that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this
case. He has submitted that the petitioner is roped in the present FIR on
the basis of presumptions and assumptions as there is no evidence in
support of the allegations made in the FIR. He has submitted that the
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172113
CRM-M No.64459 of 2024 -3-
ingredients of Section 409 IPC are not made out against the present
petitioner as he was never employed by the complainant’s company. He
has submitted that the allegations made are totally based on documentary
evidence which are already in the custody of the complainant and thus,
there is no possibility of tampering of the same. He has further submitted
that there is a delay of 10 months in registration of the FIR and during the
preliminary investigation, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity
and thus, the inquiry conducted cannot be relied upon. He has submitted
that co-accused, namely, Amit Gupta has already been granted interim
bail by this Court in CRM-M-52683-2024 vide order dated 22.10.2024
and thus the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Notice of motion.
5. On asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG,
Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
6. At this stage, Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate has appeared on
behalf of the complainant. He however has opposed the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the
petitioner was working as a Field Assistant, who has committed the
criminal breach of trust. He has submitted that the complainant filed the
complaint initially which was duly inquired into and the allegations were
substantiated during the inquiry and it is thereafter the FIR was
registered. He has submitted that co-accused, Amit Gupta has been
granted the interim protection on the ground that in all he had paid
Rs.21,00,000/-. He has submitted that role of the petitioner is different
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172113
CRM-M No.64459 of 2024 -4-
from that of the co-accused. He has submitted that the petitioner is the
main accused and the investigation is at the initial stage and thus no case
is made out for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner. He has also submitted that during the
preliminary inquiry, complicity of the petitioner was established and it is
only thereafter, the FIR was registered. He has submitted that custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is essential for unraveling the mystery. He
has thus submitted that the petition being devoid of any merit deserves to
be dismissed.
8. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record with their able assistance.
9. It is apparent from the perusal of the record that the
complaint was filed by complainant, namely, Vinod Kumar, which was
duly inquired into and on the basis of inquiry report, the present FIR was
registered. The petitioner was working as a Field Assistant. The
allegations pertains to the embezzlement committed by him by misusing
the position. The investigation is at threshold and the allegations against
the petitioner are of serious nature.
10. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory
parameters are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) BNSS which reads as
under:-
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172113CRM-M No.64459 of 2024 -5-
“Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:
1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on
an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may
apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction
under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in
the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
2. When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction
under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such
directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may
think fit, including-
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the
previous permission of the Court;
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of
section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.”
11. As per the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, while
granting anticipatory bail, the Court is to maintain a balance between the
individual liberty and the interest of society. However, the interest of the
society would always prevail upon the right of personal liberty. The
relevant part of the judgment is as follows:-
“31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation
appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of
justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to
injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested,5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172113CRM-M No.64459 of 2024 -6-
a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the
event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other
hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of
the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of
anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order
would not be made. But the converse of these propositions
is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid
down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot
be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be
actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory
bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant
will abscond. There are several other considerations, too
numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must
weigh with the court while granting or rejecting
anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the
proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead
to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of
the applicant’s presence not being secured at the trial, a
reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered
with and “the larger interests of the public or the state”
are some of the considerations which the court has to keep
in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory
bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed
out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622,
which, though, was a case under the old Section 498
which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code.
It is of paramount consideration to remember that the
freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival
of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the
individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free
man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is
willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172113
CRM-M No.64459 of 2024 -7-
acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to
impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested,
he shall be enlarged on bail.”
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Vs. Anil Sharma,
(1997) 7SCC 187, held as under:-
“6.We find force in the submission of the CBI that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation
oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced
with a favorable 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 materials 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 need 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.”
13. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled,
it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie
found. Needless to say, the investigation is at threshold and in the facts
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172113
CRM-M No.64459 of 2024 -8-
and circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be
essential and granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage
would scuttle the ongoing investigation.
14. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
the petitioner do not qualify for the grant of anticipatory bail and the
same is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
19.12.2024 JUDGE
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2024 21:20:52 :::