Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 335 (PNJ)

Ram Murti v. State of Haryana

2012-02-24

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No. 61 dated 18.08.2011 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 9.12.2011 passed the following order:- “Petitioner in the capacity as Sarpanch is alleged to have misappropriated the money meant for the pensioners despite the fact that the said pensioners had died. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the information regarding the deceased pensioners was not given to the concerned quarters as a result of which the family members had inadvertently received pensions but the entire amount wrongly received by the pensioners stand re-deposited with the Social Welfare Department. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the petitioner had approached this Court earlier and withdrawn the petition, the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 had not been deleted from the FIR but now on investigation, the said sections have been deleted by the police. Notice of motion for December 21, 2011.” 4. Subsequently, co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order on 21.12.2011 :- “The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of complainant Parhlad Singh alleging that the petitioner, in the capacity as Sarpanch, had misappropriated the money, which was meant for the pensioners. The pension of the deceased persons had been withdrawn and misappropriated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a sum of Rs.18,000/-, which had inadvertently been withdrawn by the family of the deceased persons on the verification of the petitioner, stands returned to the concerned department. Counsel for the complainant has intervened to oppose the petition for pre-arrest bail on the ground that earlier the petitioner had filed a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in this court but it was dismissed as withdrawn on 2.11.2011. Counsel for the complainant has intervened to oppose the petition for pre-arrest bail on the ground that earlier the petitioner had filed a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in this court but it was dismissed as withdrawn on 2.11.2011. A reference has been made to the said order wherein the petitioner had been given permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate and seek the concession of regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of the subsequent event, the petitioner is entitled to file this second petition for pre-arrest bail. It has been informed that offences u/s 467/468/471 IPC have been deleted from the FIR. On the instructions of SI Jagdish Chander, learned State counsel informs that the said offences have actually be deleted on the basis of the inquiry conducted by DSP Satbir Singh. The petitioner claims that on the basis of the information received from the Illaqa Magistrate, the petitioner has come to learn that offences u/s 467/468/471 IPC have already been deleted from the FIR. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the maintainability of the second petition. I am satisfied that on account of the subsequent event, mentioned herein above, the second petition for pre-arrest bail is maintainable. The short question, which arises for consideration to determine the right of the petitioner u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is whether on the basis of the allegations u/s 419/420 IPC, prima facie the petitioner can be said to have committed an offence. The allegations in the FIR do not indicate that the petitioner had persuaded any person with an intention to cheat, to part with property, warranting punishment u/s 420 IPC. Since the petitioner had himself not obtained any wrongful gain with corresponding loss to the complainant, Prima facie it does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation on 7.1.2012. In case of petitioner doing so, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The investigating officer will bring to the notice of this court, on the next date of hearing, the material gathered by the investigating agency to prima facie establish the involvement of the petitioner in the offence u/s 420 IPC Adjourned to 14.2.2012" 5. The investigating officer will bring to the notice of this court, on the next date of hearing, the material gathered by the investigating agency to prima facie establish the involvement of the petitioner in the offence u/s 420 IPC Adjourned to 14.2.2012" 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 21.12.2011. 6. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State on the instructions of ASI Jagdish Chander that petitioner has already joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation and that the State is having no objection if the interim order is made absolute. 7. However, bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that in view of the fact that earlier petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 2.11.2011, the second application is not maintainable. He has also contended that though offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC were ordered to be deleted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police but the same were again inserted by the Superintendent of Police. 8. Be that as it may, petitioner has already joined the investigation in pursuant to the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and he is no more required for custodial interrogation and the State is having no objection if the interim order is made absolute. 9. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner Ram Murti is accepted and order dated 21.12.2011 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 10. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.