Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pahara Singh Asstt. Sub Inspector vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158891
CRM-M-56139-2023
250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56139-2023
Reserved on: 29.11.2023
Pronounced on: 12.12.2023
Pahara Singh Ass . Sub Inspector ...Pe$$oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. A.S. Brar, Advocate
for the pe$$oner.
Mr. Ravinder Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta$on Sec$ons
161 10.08.2023 City Jagraon, District 7, 8 of Preven$on of Corrup$on
Ludhiana Rural Act, 1988
1. The pe$$oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap$oned above has come up before this Court under Sec$on 438 CrPC seeking an$cipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 8 of the bail pe$$on, the accused declares he has following criminal antecedent:-
FIR No. Date Offences Police Sta$on 266 22.12.2017 58 of NDPS Act and 193, 195 IPC --
3. Considering the serious nature of allega$ons, this Court had not granted interim protec$on to the pe$$oner, however on 20.11.2023, this Court wanted the pe$$oner to join the inves$ga$on, as such this Court had granted interim bail to the pe$$oner $ll the next date of hearing. The interim order is con$nuing $ll date.
4. The general conten$on of the pe$$oner is that the custodial inves$ga$on is neither required nor would serve any purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarcera$on would cause an irreversible injus$ce to the pe$$oner and family.
5. The state's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the allega$ons, the pe$$oner's custodial interroga$on is necessary.
6. Facts of the case are being extracted from the pe$$on as well as reply dated 15.11.2023 filed by the concerned DySP. As per prosecu$on case, the complainant was running a confec$onery shop and a large number of FIRs under NDPS Act were registered against the complainant. On 03.08.2023, pe$$oner- ASI accompanied by two non police officials visited the complainant's house and told her that he has been directed by the DySP to pick her up as well as her husband. However, the pe$$oner told the complainant to enter into a deal because of which he would not take them and upon 1 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2023 06:29:30 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158891 CRM-M-56139-2023 that, he asked the complainant to give him a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant expressed her inability, however finally claims to have handed over a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the pe$$oner, but the pe$$oner was adamant for more money. On this, the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/- from her sister-in-law and in all, gave Rs.15,000/- as bribe to the pe$$oner. The pe$$oner told to the complainant that he would collect the remaining amount of Rs.35,000/- aHer 02 days i.e. on 05.08.2023. On this, the complainant showed her inability and finally se led 07.08.2023 a date for balance payment. On 07.08.2023, the pe$$oner called the complainant on seven occasions but she kept on seeking $me and recorded the conversa$on. On 08.08.2023, pe$$oner along with non officials i.e. private individuals again visited the complainant's shop to collect Rs.35,000/- and on her refusal to give the money, the pe$$oner abused and threatened her that they would register a case of keeping 1000 tablets against her. The complainant had again prepared an audio recording of the demand of payment and circulated the same through news channel. Based on this, the police registered an FIR and it transpired that one Constable who is posted in Narco$cs and CIA had also connived with the pe$$oner. The complainant also alleged allega$ons of connivance against Raghvir @ Deepa.
7. I have heard counsel for the par$es and gone through the pleadings as well as reply.
8. I have also watched the videos on the digital device of my law researcher.
9. In addi$on to this, I have also gone through the reply dated 28.11.2023 which was filed pursuant to specific direc$ons of this Court on 16.11.2023.
10. An analysis of the en$re pleadings, the video recordings as well as the arguments of the par$es would lead to the following inference and outcome. The Inves$gator has gathered sufficient evidence that the pe$$oner- ASI accompanied by two individuals visited the complainant's shop on 03.08.2023. The complainant has a massive number of cases under NDPS Act. The pe$$oner told her that the DySP had directed him to produce her before him, however the pe$$oner told the complainant that in case she is willing to give some money, he is also interested to se le the ma er. On this, the nego$a$ons took place and the pe$$oner insisted on receiving a sum of Rs.50,000/- for not producing her before the concerned DySP. At that stage, the complainant had no specific informa$on that whether the concerned DySP had infact called her or not. She agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- but the complainant started recording the conversa$ons and claims to have paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the pe$$oner. It appears that the pe$$oner to receive the outstanding amount of Rs.35,000/, made seven telephonic calls to the complainant on 07.08.2023. In para no.4 of the reply dated 15.11.2023, there is specific averment by the concerned DySP that the pe$$oner had made seven phone calls to the complainant to receive the outstanding amount of Rs.35,000/-, however the 2 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2023 06:29:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158891 CRM-M-56139-2023 complainant recorded the conversa$on and leaked the same to a news channel which went viral. On coming to know that the allega$ons of demand have gone to social media, the pe$$oner became nervous and as per reply dated 28.11.2023 filed by DySP, contacted one journalist to se le the ma er. On this, the journalist demanded a sum of Rs.5 lacs. The pe$$oner himself has annexed the recording of the conversa$on between the complainant and the journalist vide Annexure P-3. As per the said conversa$on, the complainant finally agreed to receive a sum of Rs.4 lacs to se le the ma er with the pe$$oner which included the share of the journalist.
11. The Inves$gator has gathered sufficient evidence that one journalist named Rishu was roped in by the pe$$oner to se le the ma er with the complainant. In the en$rety of facts and circumstances, the Inves$gator has gathered sufficient evidence that there was no reason for the pe$$oner to visit the shop of the complainant and further that there was no evidence of any direc$on issued by the concerned DySP based on which the pe$$oner had conveyed to the complainant that DySP was calling her. In the en$rety of facts and circumstances, there is prima facie evidence that pe$$oner had ini$ally demanded money and subsequently to se le the ma er, roped a journalist and agreed to pay Rs.4 lacs to the complainant, to which the complainant also agreed. The inves$ga$on has to be conducted on all these facts. Given the serious nature of allega$ons, the pe$$oner is not en$tled to any bail.
12. Given the nature of allega$ons, custodial interroga$on is required. An analysis of the allega$ons and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the pe$$oner.
13. In Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529, Supreme Court holds, [16]. ... We have no$ced one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interroga$on is required and, therefore, an$cipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconcep$on of law that if no case for custodial interroga$on is made out by the prosecu$on, then that alone would be a good ground to grant an$cipatory bail. Custodial interroga$on can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an applica$on seeking an$cipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interroga$on of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be an$cipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an an$cipatory bail applica$on should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. ThereaHer, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interroga$on can be one of the grounds to decline an$cipatory bail. However, even if custodial interroga$on is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant an$cipatory bail.
33 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2023 06:29:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158891 CRM-M-56139-2023
14. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, Supreme Court holds, [5]. ....The en$re community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be commi ed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is commi ed with cool calcula$on and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfei$ng the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer jus$ce in an even-handed manner without fear of cri$cism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the na$onal economy and na$onal interest....."
15. In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Supreme Court holds, [6]. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interroga$on is qualita$vely more elicita$on oriented than ques$oning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Sec$on 438 of the code. In a case like this effec$ve interroga$on of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informa$ons and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interroga$on would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the $me he interrogated. Very oHen interroga$on in such a condi$on would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interroga$on 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 task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.
16. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Supreme Court holds, [19]. Parameters for grant of an$cipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be sa$sfied and further while gran$ng such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. An$cipatory bail can be granted only in excep$onal circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305].
17. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, Supreme Court holds, [34]. Economic offences cons$tute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the ma er of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affec$ng the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
44 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2023 06:29:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158891 CRM-M-56139-2023 [35]. While gran$ng bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusa$ons, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which convic$on will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considera$ons.
18. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 9 SCC 24, Supreme Court holds, [70]. We are conscious of the fact that the legisla$ve intent behind the introduc$on of Sec$on 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant an$cipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Ar$cle 21 of the Cons$tu$on of India.
19. In Central Bureau of Inves$ga$on v. Santosh Karnani, Cr.A 1148 of 2023, dated 17-04- 2023, Supreme Court, in an FIR registered under sec$ons under Sec$ons 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Preven$on of Corrup$on Act, 1988, holds, [24]. The $me−tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be applied for grant or refusal of an$cipatory bail. The judicial discre$on of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must draw a delicate balance between liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Ar$cle 21 of the Cons$tu$on and the need for a fair and free inves$ga$on, which must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has devasta$ng and irreversible social s$gma, humilia$on, insult, mental pain and other fearful consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court, on considera$on of material informa$on gathered by the Inves$ga$ng Agency, is prima facie sa$sfied that there is something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the inves$ga$on, more so when the allega$ons are grave in nature.
[31]. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corrup$on poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percola$ng under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, "Corrup$on is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority." Hence, the need to be extra conscious.
55 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2023 06:29:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158891 CRM-M-56139-2023
20. In the background of the allega$ons and the light of the judicial precedents men$oned above in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe$$oner fails to make a case for an$cipatory bail.
21. Any observa$on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to these comments.
Pe on dismissed. Interim order dated 20.11.2023 stands vacated. All pending applica$ons, if any, also stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
12.12.2023
Jyo$ Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158891
6
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2023 06:29:31 :::