Harbans Lal, J.:- This petition has been moved by Sanjay Pal under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking his anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No. 275 dated 4.11.2009 under section 420/120b of ipc registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.
2. The facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Jaswant Singh moved complaint before the police authorities stating therein that his son Balwinder Singh and the petitioner were doing the job at Maya Academy. The petitioner asked his son that he had relations with Manjit Singh and Abhishek who are doing the business of sending the persons abroad. Accordingly his son introduced the petitioner to him. Thereupon the petitioner induced him that he would introduce him with Manjit Singh and Abhishek. After few days, the said Sanjay Pal introduced the complainant with Manjit Singh and Abhishek who induced him to pay Rs.12 lacs for sending his son to Canada. He transferred an amount of Rs.7,05,000/- in the account of the petitioner at Bombay. He further deposited Rs.1,24,000/- in ICICI bank in the account of Manjit Singh. He also gave an amount of Rs.3,71,000/- to Manjit Singh and Abhishek. They also obtained passport of his son. They did not send his son to abroad nor returned the amount. On these facts the present case has been registered.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with good deal of force that the F.I.R. has been lodged by father of Kulwinder Singh intentionally involving the petitioner so that money which has been paid by Kulwinder Singh to accused Manjit Singh is retrieved also by coercing the petitioner. Since Balwinder Singh was staying with the petitioner, he got some money transferred in the account of latter. The money was withdrawn and handed over to Balwinder Singh who further gave it to Manjit Singh in the presence of the petitioner. When Manjit and Abhishek have not ensured immigration of Balwinder Singh, the petitioner is being unnecessarily held liable by the father of Balwinder Singh.
5. To controvert these submissions, learned State counsel maintained that the proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are in progress against the petitioner. The amount of Rs.7,05,000/- still remains to be recovered from the petitioner.
6. I have well considered the rival contentions.
7. As alleged Balwinder Singh son of the complainant was known to the petitioner. He had come to Mumbai in search of some job. Since Balwinder Singh had no place to live as such the petitioner allowed him to live with him. Balwinder Singh had no bank account at Bombay. Whenever, he needed money from his parents his father used to deposit the amount at Ludhiana and same was used to be transferred to the petitioner's account. Balwinder Singh used to receive the same from the petitioner. Balwinder Singh wanted to go to Canada. The deal was struck at Rs.12.00 Lacs for sending him abroad. Now an amount of Rs.7,05,000/- remains to be recovered from the petitioner. There is no denying the fact that the P.O. Proceedings are in progress against the petitioner. In the factual scenario, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. In re: State Rep. By The C.B.I v. Anil Sharma., 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 268 (SC), it has been held as under:-
"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 favourable 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."
8. The Court considering an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, must strike a balance between the rights of an accused and the duty and obligation conferred upon an investigating agency. Thus, taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this petition merits dismissal. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.
Since the main petition has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous, if any, also stand disposed of.
Comments