Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 962 (PNJ)

Sunil Peter v. State of Punjab

2014-06-30

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) - At the very outset, it will not be out of place to mention here that the petitioners(travel agents) were permitted to withdraw the first petition for anticipatory bail bearing CRM No.M-17785 of 2014, to enable them to file a fresh petition after returning the impugned amount to the aggrieved persons, by this Court by way of order dated May 22, 2014(Annexure P-2). 2. Instead of returning the impugned amount to the aggrieved persons, the petitioners have again moved this second petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them along with their other co-accused, vide FIR No.40 dated 20.03.2014, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, by the police of Police Station City Batala, District Gurdaspur. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, 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 petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case, so, they are entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, sans merit. 5. As is evident from the record that, very direct and serious allegations of heinous offence are assigned that petitioner-Sunil Peter and his wife Ribka were running a fake travel agency. They asked complainants-Arun Kumar and Sarabjit Singh to part with Rs.3,50,000/- each on the pretext of sending them to Singapore. The petitioners have also taken their passports. Instead of sending them to Singapore, they were illegally sent to Thailand. Narrating the sequence of events of cheating and misappropriating the amount, the complainants, inter alia, have specifically claimed that they were cheated and their amount of Rs.7 lacs was misappropriated by the petitioners. When the petitioners-accused were confronted with the situation, then they issued cheques worth Rs.3,50,000/- each in favour of the complainants from their joint account. The cheques were dishonoured. According to the complainants, neither the petitioners-accused have sent them to Singapore as promised and cheated them, nor returned their indicated amount of Rs.7 lacs. Meaning thereby, very direct and serious allegations of cheating and misappropriation of amount are attributed to the petitioners. 6. The cheques were dishonoured. According to the complainants, neither the petitioners-accused have sent them to Singapore as promised and cheated them, nor returned their indicated amount of Rs.7 lacs. Meaning thereby, very direct and serious allegations of cheating and misappropriation of amount are attributed to the petitioners. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the serious allegations of heinous and grave offence, to me, the custodial interrogation of petitioners is essential in this case. If the anticipatory bail is allowed to them, then the investigating agency would be deprived from ascertaining the modus operandi of the petitioners, their involvement in any other such criminal cases, recovery of amount, case property and effective investigation. It will naturally adversely affect and weaken the case of the prosecution, which to my mind, is not legally permissible. 7. Above all, the anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine/course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.PC is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. At the same time, it is now wellsettled proposition of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest and 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. 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 in this relevant connection. Moreover, it cannot possibly be denied that the tendency and frequency of cheating innocent persons and misappropriating their huge amount by such fake travel agents, have been increasing day-by-day, which needs to be curbed with heavy hands. 8. Moreover, it cannot possibly be denied that the tendency and frequency of cheating innocent persons and misappropriating their huge amount by such fake travel agents, have been increasing day-by-day, which needs to be curbed with heavy hands. 8. 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 trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed as such, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————