Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State Of Haryana on 30 July, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099673
CRM-M-23690-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-23690-2024
Reserved on: 11.07.2024
Pronounced on: 30.07.2024
Sunil Kumar Yadav ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate for the pe oner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. D.A.G, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons
09 08.03.2024 An Corrup on 7, 7-A, 13(1) (b), 13(2) of
Bureau, Karnal, Preven on of Corrup on Act,
District Karnal 1988 and 384, 120-B IPC
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 13 of the bail pe on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. The prosecu on's case is being taken from the reply dated 18.05.2024 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows:
"2. xxx xxx xxx On 08-03-2024, the complainant Rajpal S/o Amarnath handed over his handwri"en complaint to Inspector Tejpal, An% Corrup%on Bureau, Karnal Range, Karnal, wherein he had alleged that he was having a Canter bearing registra%on no.HR-45-B 3831, which was registered in the name of his wife Suman Devi. About 2 years ago, complainant sold the same to Jarnail Singh S/o Antram R/o Village Koer, for which complainant wife executed an affidavit regarding sale of said Canter and the same bears the signatures of both seller as well as buyer. Now this vehicle has been taken in police possession in Case FIR 660 dated 11-11-2023 u/s 8, 20 NDPS Act, Police Sta%on Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, U"ar Pradesh. A;er taking the said vehicle in police possession, its driver was 1 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 05-08-2024 22:35:03 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099673 CRM-M-23690-2024 also arrested by U"ar Pradesh Police. He (complainant) further stated that two Police officials namely Constable Sunil Kumar (pe%%oner- accused) and Constable Manjeet (co-accused) used to call him regarding the inves%ga%on of the said case through their mobile numbers 6393004361 and 9956191246, respec%vely and they used to threaten him that said vehicle in ques%on is in the name of his wife, she would be arrested and if bribe of Rs.50,000/- is paid, then they would hush up the ma"er. Complainant further stated that he had handed over a copy of affidavit regarding sale of said vehicle and he and his wife are innocent and they have no concern of any kind with that sold vehicle. Transfer of said vehicle in the name of purchaser is pending and both the police officials, under threat and duress, are demanding bribe of Rs.50,000/-. Constable Manjeet telephonically informed the complainant that Ct. Sunil Kumar Yadav (pe%%oner-accused) had asked him to take bribe of Rs.50,000/- from complainant during his return from Punjab. Both police officials by hatching a criminal conspiracy are raising demand of bribe from complainant but he didn't want to pay the bribe money to them. He has also recorded the said conversa%on and he will hand over the same lateron. Hence, the present Case FIR No.9 dated 08-03-2024 was registered u/s 7, 7A, 13(1) (b), 13(2) PC Act, 1988 and 120-B, 384 IPC Police Sta%on An% Corrup%on Bureau, Karnal Range, Karnal.
3. That therea;er, the Superintendent of Police An% Corrup%on Bureau, Karnal appointed Smt. Sudesh DEEO, Karnal as Gaze"ed Officer upon which the Gaze"ed Officer/Independent witness further appointed Sh. Rajesh Bha%a, Deputy Superintendent of her office as Shadow Witness. Raiding team was cons%tuted and a;er applying Phenolphthalein powder on currency notes of Rs.50,000/- the said notes were handed over to the complainant Rajpal who was instructed to talk with Constable Manjeet for his work and on raising his demand. the complainant was instructed to hand over Rs.50,000/- tainted money to Constable Manjeet (co-accused). The Shadow witness was also instructed to see and hear the conversa%on between complainant and accused and was further directed to give the signal to the raiding team. List of Currency notes, memo of handing over the notes and the search memo etc. were prepared.
Therea;er, the complainant and shadow witness Proceeded to meet Constable Manjeet and a;er some %me, the complainant and shadow witness acted accordingly and therea;er, Constable Manjeet (co-accused) was apprehended on spot near Dyal Singh College, Karnal. Upon asking him 2 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 05-08-2024 22:35:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099673 CRM-M-23690-2024 to produce the bribe money, Manjeet handed over the bribe money of Rs.50,000/- held in his right hand to the independent witness/gaze"ed officer. The hands of the complainant, Rajpat and Manjeet (co-accused) were got washed separately and the solu%on thereof turned pink. The currency notes, nips of hand washes were converted into sealed parcels and were taken into possession vide recovery memo which were also signed by the respected witnesses. Site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared."
4. The pe oner's general conten on 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 his family. He submits that the pe oner is en tled to bail because he has a clean, unblemished record.
5. Counsel for the pe oner has further argued on the following points:
"A. That the present pe%%oner never remained associated in the Inves%ga%on of the case: That it is per%nent to men%on here that the FIR No.660 dated 11.11.2023 was registered in PS Robartganj. Dis".
Sonbhadra, U"ar Pradesh and Inspector Shri Vishwanath Pratap Singh was conduc%ng the inves%ga%on. The Pe%%oner, Ct. Sunil never remained associated in the inves%ga%on of the said case at any stage. This fact is clear from the reply filed by the State before the Id. Lower Court to the bail applica%on of the pe%%oner, Annexure P-2, (the relevant part is at pg. 23 of the paper book). Since, the pe%%oner never remained associated in the inves%ga%on of the said case, the ques%on of raising any demand of bribe by the pe%%oner does not arise as he could not have extended any benefit to the complainant. The pe%%oner has men%oned about the same in para no. 4 of the pe%%on.
B. That there is no direct demand and no recovery has been affected from the present pe%%oner. That from the perusal of the alleged audio recording between the complainant and the pe%%oner it can be seen that there is no direct demand made by the pe%%oner. There is no recording produced in the Court where the alleged demand was made by the pe%%oner which shows that the pe%%oner is falsely implicated in this case. Even the alleged bribe money neither paid to nor recovered from the pe%%oner. The alleged bribe money was paid to and recovered from the co-accused Manjit who was caught red handed by the An%-Corrup%on Bureau, Karnal. The present 3 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 05-08-2024 22:35:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099673 CRM-M-23690-2024 pe%%oner was not accompanying the accused Manjeet at the %me of payment of the alleged bribe."
6. State counsel opposes the bail and has referred to paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of the reply which reads as follows:
"4. That therea;er, Constable Manjeet (co-accused) was arrested in the present case and he voluntarily suffered his disclosure statement (Annexure R-1) and disclosed that he took the bribe money from complainant in collusion with Constable Sunil Kumar Yadav (pe%%oner- accused) and his share was Rs.20,000/- out of it, whereas Rs.30,000/- share was of pe%%oner Ct. Sunil Kumar Yadav.
Therea;er, the inves%ga%ng officer took into Possession the mobile phone of co-accused Ct. Manjeet alongwith sim no. 99561-91246 and got inspected the same through Inspector Deepak Kumar, Cyber Cell Incharge, PS ACB Karnal, who upon inspec%on found that Ct. Sunil (pe%%oner-accused) had sent the Case Diaries no.11 dated 27-01-2024 and no.13 dated 22-02-2024 of case FIR 660 dated 11-11-2023 u/s 8, 20 NDPS Act, Police Sta%on Robertsganj District Sonbhadra, U"ar Pradesh through Whatsapp message from his mobile phone to Ct. Manjeet (co- accused) mobile phone. The mobile phone and the prints of the whatsapp message (15 pages) alongwith the cer%ficate u/s 65-B, Evidence Act were taken into possession vide separate recovery memo's The inves%ga%ng officer also recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
5. That during the course of inves%ga%on on 11-03-2024, complainant Rajpal produced the audio recording device/ mobile phone, respec%vely, before the inves%ga%ng officer, wherein demand of bribe/conversa%on was recorded among the complainant Rajpal and both accused persons viz Ct. Manjeet (co-accused) and Ct. Sunil Kumar Yadav (pe%%oner-accused), upon which the inves%ga%ng officer with the help of Inspector Deepak and HC Balister, prepared the CD and its transcript in Hindi and a;er conver%ng the CD's into a separate sealed parcels, the audio CD's, its transcript and cer%ficates u/s 65-1B, Evidence Act were taken into possession vide memo, which was signed by respec%ve witnesses. The inves%ga%ng officer also recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C on even dates. The true translated copy of audio transcrip%on is a"ached herewith as (Annexure R-2).4
4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 05-08-2024 22:35:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099673 CRM-M-23690-2024
8. That on 12-04-2024, the call details of mobile numbers 99561- 91246, 6393004361 and 9813015741, which were used by Ct. Manjeet Kumar (co-accused), Ct. Sunil Kumar Yadav (pe%%oner-accused) and complainant Rajpal, respec%vely, alongwith CDR's, CAF ID and Cer%ficates u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act were obtained through e-mails from the Nodal officers of Reliance and Vodafone companies and the same were taken into possession vide separate recovery memo by the inves%ga%ng officer.
Further, on examina%on of above said mobile numbers CDR's, it was revealed that from 25-02-24 to 8-03-24, Ct. Sunil Kumar Yadav (pe%%oner-accused) had conversed 5 %mes with complainant Rajpal and 32 %mes with Ct. Manjeet (co-accused) on his mobile phone and whereas co-accused Ct. Manjeet had conversed 25 %mes with complainant Rajpal on his mobile phone."
7. An analysis of the above arguments would lead to the outcome that the present pe oner had five telephonic conversa ons with complainant-Raj Pal and thirty-two calls with co-accused Manjeet, from whose possession Rs.50,000/- was recovered. The complainant's truck was apprehended. The truck (model canter) which was registered in the complainant's wife's name, is stated to have been sold based on an agreement. However, the said truck was confiscated for transpor ng ganja and an FIR No.660 dated 11.11.2023 under Sec ons 8 and 20 of NDPS Act was registered in Police Sta on Robertsganj District Sonbhadra, UDar Pradesh. The driver and conductor were also arrested. AEer that, the involvement of the owner was found. The pe oner and his co- accused constable Manjeet contacted the complainant. On that, the complainant informed them about the sale of the vehicle much earlier based on the agreement and also supplied copies of such agreement to the pe oner. However, instead of absolving the complainant's wife from the accusa ons, they demanded Rs. 1 lakh, and later, the amount was seDled at Rs.50,000/-. The complainant had recorded all such conversa ons, and transcripts of the same are part of the record. In one conversa on, it is explicitly clear that the complainant is telling the pe oner that his demand of Rs.1 lakh is excessive and that the complainant offered Rs.50,000/- to which the pe oner agreed. Later, he told Manjeet to recover the money, and he also made a phone call. Since the complainant had already informed the Vigilance Bureau, Manjeet was nabbed red-handed with Rs.50,000/-. Manjeet was arrested on the spot. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein and the presence of phenolphthalein & sodium carbonate was confirmed in Manjeet's hand wash and the complainants respec vely.
55 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 05-08-2024 22:35:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099673 CRM-M-23690-2024 Thus, once the complainant had told the pe oner that the vehicle in ques on had already been sold by way of an agreement that would disconnect the possession of the complainant's wife on the truck from which the contraband was recovered, instead of doing his statutory duty of fair and impar al inves ga on, the pe oner agreed to release the same when he was offered Rs.50,000/-. When the inves gator is under a statutory duty to conduct a fair and impar al inves ga on, the transcripts clearly men on that the complainant had expressed his inability to pay Rs.1 lakh and had requested the pe oner to reduce it. On this, the pe oner told the complainant to make an offer, to which the complainant offered Rs.50,000/- to which the pe oner agreed. The powerful authority that the criminal laws have conferred upon the inves gator and the other police officials has to be exercised with utmost honesty, truthfulness, and keeping in view the ground and factual reali es and compassion. The pe oner had material, primafacie indica ng that the complainant's wife was not involved in the truck trafficking and was also convinced that the vehicle in ques on had already been sold by her a long me back based on the agreement, but he con nued to threaten the complainant about implica ng his wife and also wanted money to release the vehicle in ques on. Given the above, the prosecu on has collected sufficient primafacie evidence connec ng the pe oner with the demand and recovery.
8. 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. ThereaEer, 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.
9. 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 commiDed in the heat of moment upon 6 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 05-08-2024 22:35:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099673 CRM-M-23690-2024 passions being aroused. An economic offence is commiDed 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....."
10. 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 oEen 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.
11. 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].
12. 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 maDer 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.
[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 7 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 05-08-2024 22:35:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099673 CRM-M-23690-2024 being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considera ons.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
88 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 05-08-2024 22:35:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099673 CRM-M-23690-2024
16. 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.
Pe11on dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. All pending applica ons, if any, also stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
30.07.2024
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
9
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 05-08-2024 22:35:04 :::