Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santosh Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 14 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006716
CRM-M No.1340 of 2025 -1-
103
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.1340 of 2025
Date of Decision: 14.01.2025
Santosh Kaur
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Gursimran Singh Madaan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
1. Present second petition has been filed praying for the grant
of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.124, dated
12.06.2024, under Sections 420, 419, 465, 467, 471, 120-B of IPC,
registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Police
Commissionerate, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1). Further prayer has been
made for staying the arrest of the petitioner and direction be issued to
release the petitioner on ad-interim bail during the pendency of the
present petition.
2. As evident from the facts, the petitioner earlier approached
this Court by way of filing CRM-M No.50929 of 2024 praying for the
grant of anticipatory bail, however after hearing learned counsel for the
petitioner at length, he was allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 22:45:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006716
CRM-M No.1340 of 2025 -2-
to avail alternative remedy as available to the petitioner under the law
vide order dated 11.12.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case.
He has submitted that the petitioner earlier approached the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana praying for the grant of
anticipatory bail, however the same was declined by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 22.08.2024.
Thereafter being aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court praying
for the grant of anticipatory bail by way of filing CRM-M No.50929 of
2024, which was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
11.12.2024. He has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in ‘Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another‘ (2014)
8 SCC 273 and has submitted that the present second petition is
maintainable.
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. He
however has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is the beneficiary and has
sold the plot through fake owners. He has submitted that the land
involved was sold to several persons. It has been submitted that the
investigation would be adversely effected, if the petitioner is granted the
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 22:45:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006716
CRM-M No.1340 of 2025 -3-
concession of anticipatory bail and thus, the present petition deserves to
be dismissed.
6. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record with their able assistance.
7. It is apparent that the present petition is the second petition
filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in’Arnesh Kumar
vs. State of Bihar and another‘ (2014) 8 SCC 273. Earlier petition filed
by the petitioner was heard at length and when the Court was not
inclined, the same was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail
the alternative remedy in accordance with law. Even if the present
petition is the second petition, the Court does not reject the same on its
maintainability, however the earlier petition was also declined to be on
merits and this petition is also to be weighed on merits. The FIR in the
present case was registered on the basis of secret information and during
the investigation, it was revealed so far that the land has been sold by
way of fake sale deeds and the petitioner is also the beneficiary of the
same. The investigation is at threshold.
8. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory
parameters are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) 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
an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may
apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 22:45:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006716CRM-M No.1340 of 2025 -4-
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.”
9. 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,
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 of4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 22:45:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006716CRM-M No.1340 of 2025 -5-
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
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.”
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 22:45:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006716
CRM-M No.1340 of 2025 -6-
10. 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.”
11. 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
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.
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 22:45:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006716
CRM-M No.1340 of 2025 -7-
12. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court does not find any ground for exercising its extraordinary
jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and thus, the present petition is
hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
14.01.2025 JUDGE
rittu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2025 22:45:57 :::
[ad_1]
Source link