Sahil Dhingra v. State of Haryana

IN T

(I)

Sahil Dhin State of H

(II)

Satnam Si State of H

(III) Kawaljit K State of H

CORAM Present:

FIR No.

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ CHANDIGA

CRM-M-ngra

Versus Haryana

CRM-M-ingh

Versus Haryana

CRM-M-Kaur

Versus Haryana

Date of D M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocat for the petitioner in CRM-M-Mr. Kashish Aggarwal and M for the petitioner in CRM-M-Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, DAG, H

Dated Police Station

24.02.2024 Dhand, Kaithal

JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH -25884-2024 (O&M)

...Petitioner

...Respondent -26941-2024 (O&M)

...Petitioner

...Respondent -27658-2024 (O&M)

...Petitioner

...Respondent Decision: 05.11.2024 GURVINDER SINGH GILL e,

-25884-2024. Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocates, -26941-2024 & CRM-M-27658-Haryana. Section/s 406 & 420 IPC and 24 of the Immigration Act

-2024. f GURVIN

¶1This orde Sahil Dhi grant of a

¶2At the tim following alle Sin ther afor Inv Arr hea sati env

¶3In CRM Coordinat "[1] bea IPC Kai othe abro [2]. exc sist NDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) r shall dispose of the aforesaid t ingra, Satnam Singh and Kawa anticipatory bail in the aforement me of issuance of notice of moti g order was passed by the Coordi "Learned counsel for the peti egations in the FIR are primarily gh Sandhu for having cheated the c rein that some amount was handed resaid Shera @ Shamsher Singh Sa Notice of motion for 05.08.202 In the meantime, petitioner w estigating Officer as and when cal resting Officer would admit him to aring, on his furnishing adequate isfaction. The petitioner is directed visaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C

-M-26941-2024, the followin te Bench on 24.05.2024: ]. By way of present petition f yer has been made for grant of pre-aring FIR No.23 dated 24.02.2024 r C and Section 24 of Immirgation Ac ithal, wherein the petitioner has b ers for having deceived/cheated t oad.

Learned counsel for the petitio ept for mentioning that the petitio er of Shera Sandhu, who assured

three petitions filed on behalf of aljit Kaur respectively, seeking tioned case. ion in CRM-M-25884-2024, the inate Bench on 22.05.2024: itioner inter alia submits that the y against one Shera @ Shamsher complainant except for mentioning d over to the petitioner on behalf of andhu.

¶24will join investigation before the lled. In the event of his arrest, the o interim bail, till the next date of e bail bonds/surety bonds to his d to abide by all the conditions as C." g order was passed by the filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., -arrest bail to the petitioner in case registered under Sections 406, 420 ct at Police Station Dhand, District been implicated along with three the complainant for sending him oner submits that in the entire FIR oner happens to be the husband of d the complainant of sending him

f g e e r g f e e f s s e , e t e m R f m abro bes Rs.4 San mon Am [3]. this accu Rel othe and mai para for oad, no other allegations have be ides making an averment that that 45 lakhs from the complainant for ndhu, nothing has been alleged tha ney or even assured the complaina merica. Learned counsel also relies upon s Court in CRM-M No.25884 of 20 used namely Sahil, wherein he ha liance has also been placed upon urt in case of Pankaj Bansal vs. S ers, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3590 a d another, 2019 SCC OnLine intaining the present petition, dir agraph Nos.45 and 42 thereof resp reference:- "45. It is clear upon perusal o provision gives concurrent ju entertaining an Anticipatory Ba approaching this Court directly purpose of bail. It is discretionary the High Court or the Court of Se the Applicant to approach this discretion of the Applicant which both the Court have concurrent j restricted by construing the pr narrowly. Section 438 is a proced the personal liberty of the individ the presumption of innocence s application for anticipatory bail, which he seeks bail. An over-g conditions not to be found in S constitutionally vulnerable since depend on compliance with unre provision contained in Section These observations have been ma taken was that the power of gran

een leveled against the petitioner, t the petitioner collected a sum of r its onward transmission to Shera at the petitioner ever retained any nt of sending him abroad/Dubai or order dated 22.05.2024 passed by 024 i.e. case of similarly placed co-as been granted interim protection. decision made by the Delhi High State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and and Vinod Kumar vs. State of U.P. All 4821 for the purposes of rectly before this Court. Relevant pectively are reproduced hereunder of Section 438(1) of Cr.P.C, that the urisdiction to both the Court in ail Application. There is no bar on under Section 438 of CrPC for the y for the Applicant either to approach ession. There is no restraint cast upon Court first. It is based upon the h Court they want to approach since jurisdiction and the same cannot be rovision of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. dural provision that is concerned with dual, who is entitled to the benefit of since he is not, on the date of his convicted of the offense in respect of enerous infusion of constraints and Section 438 can make its provision the right to personal freedom cannot easonable restrictions. The beneficent 438 must be saved, not jettisoned. ade in the context that earlier the view nting anticipatory bail was somewhat

, f a y r y - . h d

f t r e n n e h n e e e

h f s f d n t t

w t [4]. situ accu spe of a accu [5]. [6]. A.G resp extraordinary in character and granted.

¶42What would constitute "sp nature of the power conferred, m Judge on a due evaluation of particular case. It would perh chronicle what would be special would be impossible to either i what would constitute special c "imperfect awareness of the ne constraint which necessitates the Judge and the discretion vested i the folly of attempting to exhausti special circumstances or being u Court would be justified in ent following, amongst other, circums

(A) Where bail, regul has already been rejected

(B) Where an accused not concerned Sessions Court

(C) Where circumstances where relegation to the justice;

(D) Where time or situat intervention."

Relying upon the aforesaid exp uation that in case of bail/regular used has been rejected by the Cou cial case for the High Court to ente anticipatory bail. In the present cas yer for grant of anticipatory bail used stands rejected and now is urt.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. G., Haryana appears and acce pondent/State and opposes the pra

d in exceptional cases it should be pecial circumstances" in light of the must also be left to be gathered by the f the facts and circumstances of a haps be imprudent to exhaustively l circumstances. As noticed above, it identify or compendiously propound circumstances. Sibbia spoke of the eeds of new situations". It is this Court leaving it to the wisdom of the n him by statute. Without committing ively enunciate what would constitute understood to have done so, the High tertaining a petition directly in the stances:- lar or anticipatory, of a co-accused by the Court of Sessions; residing within the jurisdiction of the faces a threat of arrest; s warrant immediate protection and Sessions Court would not subserve tional constraints warrant immediate position of law, which carves out a bail or anticipatory bail of a co-urt of Sessions, it can be treated as ertain the petition directly for grant se also situation is the same as the on behalf of similarly placed co-pending consideration before this Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Asstt. epts notice on behalf of the ayer made by the petitioner while

e e e a y t d e s e g e h e d e d e e a - s t e - s . e e obje app and [7]. date Hig App rega the by [8]. [9]. Inv Arr hea sati env

¶4In CRM Coordinat "[1] bea IPC Kai othe abro [2]. exc She othe ecting to the maintainability of th proaching this Court did not file a d Sessions Judge, Kaithal.

Though learned State counsel ed 01.03.2023 passed by the Hon'b gh Court Bar Association vs. The peal No(s) 1562/2027 while subm ards maintainability of anticipator High Court was pending consid urt, however, no interim order has urt as to whether the interim protec the Hon'ble Apex Court and in t ys for some time to address argume

Adjourned to 15.07.2024.

In the meanwhile, petitioner w estigating Officer as and when cal resting Officer would admit him on aring, on his furnishing adequate isfaction. The petitioner is directed visaged under Section 438(2) of Co

-M-27658-2024, the followin te Bench on 28.05.2024: ]. By way of present petition f yer has been made for grant of pre-aring FIR No.23 dated 24.02.2024 r C and Section 24 of Immigration Ac ithal, wherein the petitioner has b ers for having deceived/cheated t oad.

Learned counsel for the petitio ept for mentioning that the petiti era Sandhu, who assured the comp er allegations has been leveled aga

he present petitioner, who before any application before the District l has placed reliance upon order ble Apex Court in case of Gauhati State of Assam & Ors., Criminal mitting that the point of law as ry bail application directly before deration before the Hon'ble Apex been brought to the notice of this ction was either granted or declined this regard, learned State counsel ents. will join investigation before the lled. In the event of his arrest, the n interim bail, till the next date of bail bonds/ surety bonds to his d to abide by all the conditions as de of Criminal Procedure, 1973." g order was passed by the filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., -arrest bail to the petitioner in case registered under Sections 406, 420 ct at Police Station Dhand, District been implicated along with three the complainant for sending him oner submits that in the entire FIR ioner happens to be the sister of plainant of sending him abroad, no ainst the petitioner, besides making

e t r i l s e x s d l e e f s s e , e t e m R f o g an a com bee the [3]. [4]. situ has case anti accu [5]. [6]. A.G resp obje app and [7]. date Hig App rega the by [8]. [9]. Inv Arr hea averment that the petitioner collect mplainant for its onward transmiss n alleged that the petitioner ever re complainant of sending him abroad

xx

xx

xx

Relying upon the aforesaid exp uation that in case bail/regular bail been rejected by the Court of Ses e for the High Court to entertain icipatory bail. In the present case yer for grant of anticipatory bail used stands rejected and now is urt.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. G., Haryana appears and acce pondent/State and opposes the pra ecting to the maintainability of th proaching this Court did not file a d Sessions Judge, Kaithal.

Though learned State counsel ed 01.03.2023 passed by the Hon'b gh Court Bar Association vs. The peal No(s) 1562/2027 while subm ards maintainability of anticipator High Court was pending consid urt, however, no interim order has urt as to whether the interim protec the Hon'ble Apex Court and in t ys for some time to address argume

Adjourned to 15.07.2024.

In the meanwhile, petitioner w estigating Officer as and when cal resting Officer would admit her on aring, on her furnishing adequate

ted a sum of Rs.45 lakhs from the sion to Shera Sandhu, nothing has etained any money or even assured d/Dubai or America. position of law, which carves out a or anticipatory bail of a coaccused ssions, it can be treated as special n the petition directly for grant of e also situation is the same as the on behalf of similarly placed co-pending consideration before this Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Asstt. epts notice on behalf of the ayer made by the petitioner while he present petitioner, who before any application before the District l has placed reliance upon order ble Apex Court in case of Gauhati State of Assam & Ors., Criminal mitting that the point of law as ry bail application directly before deration before the Hon'ble Apex been brought to the notice of this ction was either granted or declined this regard, learned State counsel ents. will join investigation before the lled. In the event of her arrest, the n interim bail, till the next date of bail bonds/ surety bonds to his

e s d a d l f e - s . e e e t r i l s e x s d l e e f s sati env

¶5Today, le pursuant petitioner has not be

¶6Having r aforesaid of the am bail to the currency n in case so the curren allegedly merit acce by this Co hereby m join inves the Inves provided u

¶7A photoco

05.11.202 Vimal

isfaction. The petitioner is directed visaged under Section 438(2) of Co earned State counsel upon in to interim directions issued b rs have joined investigation, but een got recovered. regard to the aforestated posit contention of the learned State c mount in question cannot be made e petitioners, as it is not a case w notes given by the complainant ome amount is got recovered, th ncy notes so recovered are the s been handed over by the compla eptance and are hereby accepted ourt vide orders dated 22.05.202 made absolute subject to the con stigation as and when called up stigating Officer and shall als under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. opy of this order be placed on th

(GU

d to abide by all the conditions as de of Criminal Procedure, 1973." nstructions has submitted that by this Court, although all the the amount allegedly defrauded tion, this Court finds that the counsel as regards non recovery e basis for declining the grant of where the serial numbers of the had been noted down. Even if, here would be no certainty that same currency notes, which had ainant. As such, all the petitions d. The interim directions issued 24, 24.05.2024 & 28.05.2024 are ndition that the petitioners shall on to do so and cooperate with so abide by the conditions as he connected files. URVINDER SINGH GILL)

JUDGE

s t e d e y f e , t d s d e l h s