Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravikant Kumar Alias Ravi Kant Alias … vs State Of Haryana on 23 December, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172206
CRM-M-64953-2024 -1-
101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-64953-2024
Date of Decision: 23.12.2024
Ravikant Kumar @ Ravi Kant @ Folten ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Shahid Anwer, Advocate, for the petitioner
(through VC).
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court praying for granting
him anticipatory bail in a case FIR No.32, dated 30.07.2022, registered
under Sections 419, 420 IPC (Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC & Sections
66-C, 66-D of the IT Act added lateron), at Police Station Cyber Crime
Rohtak, District Rohtak.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case
was lodged on the statement of the complainant, namely, Neeru Sharma,
wherein, it was alleged that she got issued a debit card from HDFC Bank to
be sent through Blue Dart Courier. On 25.07.2022, she searched the
customer care number on the Blue Dart site and made a call. However,
thereafter she received a phone call from mobile No.82404-68183 on her
mobile number and the person calling, told his name as Rahul, who said that
he is employee of Blue Dart Courier. She asked him about the delay in
delivering the debit card, then the person asked her to make an online
complaint in that regard and to pay Rs.5/- for online complaint. On his
instructions, she opened the file sent by him and filled the Bank account
details and Paytm UPI password, as was told by him. However, on checking
she found that Rs.4,999/- and Rs.95,000/- were withdrawn from her SBI
account No.10222157081. It was alleged that some unknown person had
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 22:45:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172206
CRM-M-64953-2024 -2-
committed fraud with her by withdrawing Rs.99,999/-. Request was made to
take legal action against the culprit. On the registration of the FIR, the
investigation commenced. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak praying for grant of
anticipatory bail. However, after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in
the same, learned Court declined the same vide its order dated 25.10.2024.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court praying for grant
of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that
neither the petitioner has been named in the FIR nor he has committed any
offence as alleged. He, thus, submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as
an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused
Nitish, who was tried by the trial Court, however, on benefit of doubt, he
was acquitted by the trial Court vide order dated 25.09.2024. He has
submitted that the Investigating Agency has alleged that the mobile number
of the petitioner was used in the offence, however, the mobile number and
Bank account used in commission of offence, are not registered in the name
of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the
alleged amount. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, there being no prima facie case having been made out against the
petitioner, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice of behalf of
the State. He has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner has played a key role in the
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 22:45:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172206
CRM-M-64953-2024 -3-
commission of offence. He submits that during the investigation, it has been
found that the Bank accounts used in the offence were linked with the
mobile number of the petitioner and the amount was transferred to the same
account. He submits that the petitioner is at large since the date of
registration of the FIR and thus, there being no merit in the present petition,
the same deserves to be dismissed.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is deciphered that the FIR was registered by the complainant,
wherein, she alleged that by way of Cyber offence, she was duped of an
amount of Rs.99,999/-. It has been found by the Investigating Agency that
from the account of the complainant in the HDFC Bank, money was
transferred in the name of one Sunita in Canera Bank and one Deepak
having bank account in IDBI Bank. Both these accounts were found to have
been opened on the fake and forged documents. These bank accounts were
found to have been linked with the mobile number of the petitioner. Thus,
prima facie complicity of the petitioner has been established during the
investigation. The petitioner is at large since the date of registration of the
FIR. Co-accused, who was acquitted, was arrested and had faced the trial. It
is only on the appreciation of the evidence, the co-accused has been
acquitted by the trial Court. The petitioner cannot taken the benefit of the
same, as he is not at par with the co-accused.
7. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory
parameters are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of BNSS which reads as
under:-
“Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:
1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 22:45:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172206CRM-M-64953-2024 -4-
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.”
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State represented by CBI Vs. Anil
Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 has 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 ensconded with a
favorable order under Section 438 if the code. In a case like this
effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous
advantage in disintering many useful informations and also
materials which would have been concealed. Succession such
interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he
is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time
he 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,4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 22:45:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172206CRM-M-64953-2024 -5-
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 task of disintering
offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
9. Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, has time
and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail the Court is
to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of
accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from
justice etc. The Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision
on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion
which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances.
10. 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
established. The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory
bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for exercising the
extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the petition
being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
12. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
23.12.2024 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/Nos
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2024 22:45:43 :::