Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 659 (PNJ)

Ajay Dabas v. State of Haryana

2013-05-20

Mehinder Singh Sullar

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - Petitioner-Ajay Dabas son of Joginder Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.276 dated 31.12.2012, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC and Section 66-A of the I.T.Act, by the police of Police Station Sector 40, Gurgaon, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 4. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, sans merit. 5. As is evident from the record that, very specific and direct allegations are assigned that the petitioner and his other co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy and opened a fake agency in the name of Blue-Bell Portfolio Management Service(for short BPMS). Petitioner- Ajay Dabas is its Director, whereas Rahul Chaudhary and Naresh are its other partners. They have cheated many persons by opening the fake firm. They have allured the innocent persons and promised to provide 5 to 10% profit per month on the invested money, as assured returns. The accused have given a fake account, I.D. and password in order to cheat them. The complainant gave a cheque of Rs.5 lacs of the ICICI Bank in the name of the petitioner. He opened a fake account of the complainant and fraudulently withdrawn the amount. He has also cheated many other such persons with his evil design and misappropriated lacs of their hardearned money by fraudulent means. 6. At the very outset, learned State Counsel has submitted that as per investigation, the petitioner has embezzled an amount of Rs.62.65 lacs and cheated the depositors by alluring them to give 5 to 10% assured returns. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations of heinous offence and relatable factors mentioned here-in-above, to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential and he is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations of heinous offence and relatable factors mentioned here-in-above, to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential and he is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. To my mind, if he is allowed the concession of anticipatory bail, then the police will be deprived from recovering the embezzled amount, forged documents, case property, ascertaining the length and magnitude of such scams and effective investigation, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which is not legally permissible. 7. It is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest and effective investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations for the commission of offences in question, to me, no extra-ordinary ground, much less cogent, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. ---------0.B.S.0------------