Harjeet Singh and Another v. State of Haryana

IN THE

HARJEET SIN STATE OF HA CORAM: HO Present : Mr Mr Mr MANISHA BA

1.

Th Section 482 of for grant of a

17.08.2024 reg Station Mullan,

2.

Th complaint lodg December 2023 of land was for for purchasing who required s huge profit to relatives of pet HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M Date of d NGH AND ANOTHER Versus ARYANA ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAN r. Anuj Balian, Advocate for the r. Arjun Lakhanpal, Addl. A.G., r. Yashdeep Nain, Advocate for **** ATRA, J. (oral) he present petition has been f Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sa anticipatory bail in case arisi gistered under Sections 406,420 , District Ambala. he aforementioned FIR had be ged by the complainant-Baljeet 3, he met the present petitioners r sale in a village in Ambala an the same by representing that th uch land and such deal if condu the complainant. They also to itioner No.1-Harjeet Singh were AND HARYANA H M No.63427 of 2024 decision: 17.12.2024

…. Petitioners

…. Respondent NISHA BATRA

e petitioners. Haryana. the complainant. filed by the petitioners under anhita, 2023 (for short-'BNSS') ng out of FIR No.259 dated 0 and 120-B of IPC at Police een registered on the basis of Nain on the allegations that in who represented that 20 bighas nd induced him to invest money hey had a prospective purchaser ucted through them would fetch old the complainant that some e interested to buy that land and r ) d e f n s y r h e d even introduced father-in-law a Singh and wer manner was m and co-accused sell 20 bighas o land which was came to know cheated several money and hen FIR, investiga Apprehending of anticipatory Additional Sess

3.

It petitioners hav (Annexure P-2) Deputy Commi the involvemen FIR had been l There is no do complainant to co-accused. Th is not required. d the complainant with two pers and brother-in-law respectively re interested to purchase the ade to part with a sum of `1 cr d. In connivance with each other of land but no agreement was ex s promised by the petitioners an that petitioner No.2-Sandeep w l persons. He was also duped of nce he made prayer for taking ation proceedings have been their arrest, the petitioners had y bail which had been dismis sions Judge, Ambala vide order d is argued by learned counse ve been falsely implicated in t ) had been filed by the compla issioner of Police, Panchkula an nt of the present petitioners in t lodged subsequently thereby fal cument to show that any mone the petitioners and the money hey are ready to join investigatio In fact, the dispute between the sons by showing that they were of the petitioner No.1-Harjeet land. The complainant in this rore 10 lakhs by the petitioners r, they executed an agreement to xecuted with regard to sale of the nd subsequently the complainant was a habitual offender and had f the aforementioned amount of action. After registration of the initiated and are underway. moved an application for grant ssed by the Court of learned dated 09.12.2024. el for the petitioners that the this Case. In fact, a complaint ainant on 10.04.2024 before the nd there was no mention about the said complaint. The present lsely implicating the petitioners. ey had been handed over by the if any was given by him to the on. Their custodial interrogation e parties is of civil nature which e t s s o e t d f e . t d e t e t t . e e n h has been given that the petition

4.

5.

At filed his vakal record.

6.

Le petition, is read complainant, it allegations agai him of a huge of offence of c the allegations conducting tho ordinary or sp petitioners. Hen

7.

Th alleged to have Learned couns telephonic conv complainant su purchasing som complainant. cloak of criminality. With thes ners deserve to be extended bene otice of motion. t this stage, Mr. Yashdeep Nai atnama on behalf of the comp earned State counsel who has ap dy to argue the matter. Being ass t is argued by learned State inst the petitioners as they conni amount of money. Their active cheating the complainant, has b s in the FIR. Their custodial orough investigation of the m parring circumstance has been nce, it is urged that the petition d he petitioners by hatching a con e duped the complainant of an sel for the complainant has a versation having taken place b uggesting that the complainant me property and the same has e broad submissions, it is urged efit of pre-arrest bail. in, Advocate appeared and has plainant. The same is taken on peared on advance notice of the sisted by learned counsel for the counsel that there are serious ived with the co-accused to dupe involvement in the commission een prima facie made out from l interrogation is required for matter by the Police. No extra n made out in favour of the does not deserve to be allowed. nspiracy with the co-accused are n amount of `1 crore 10 lakhs. also shown transcript of some between the petitioners and the had given money to them for s not been given back to the d s n e e s e n m r a e e . e e r e

8.

In considered opin custodial interr proposition of secure not only powers of antic sparingly in ex the Court has to and gravity of other factors to such grant to offence. The C operate as inro Court. The cus elicitation orien favourable orde exercising such granted as a m convinced that remedy. In the exercise of the As such, I am o allowed. Accor

9.

It not be construe view of the nature of the al nion that for conducting thorough rogation of the petitioners is m law that arrest is a part of pr y the presence of the accused b cipatory bail are extra ordinary a ceptional circumstances. The ju o be properly exercised after app the accusation, possibility of ap o decide whether it is a fit case some extent interferes in the ourt has also to see that an orde ad in the normal legal procedur todial interrogation of a suspect nted than questioning a suspect er of anticipatory bail. The Co h power for grant of anticipat matter of rule and has to be gr exceptional circumstances exist e present case, no such except powers for grant of anticipatory of the considered opinion that the rdingly, the same is dismissed. is, however, clarified that obser ed as an expression of opinion on legations, this Court is of the h investigation in the matter, the must. Moreso, it is well settled ocedure of the investigation to but several other purposes. The and the same are to be exercised udicial discretion conferred upon plication of mind as to the nature pplicant fleeing from justice and for grant of anticipatory bail as sphere of investigation of an er of anticipatory bail should not re of criminal cases by the trial ted person is qualitatively more t who is well ensconced with a ourt must be circumspect while tory bail and it should not be ranted only when the Court is t to resort to that extra ordinary tional circumstances warranting y bail by this Court are existing. e petition does not deserve to be rvations made hereinabove shall n the merits of the case. e e d o e d n e d s n t l e a e e s y g . e l

10.

Si if any, is render

18.12.2024 Jyoti-IV ince the main petition has been red infructuous. (M : -5­ dismissed, pending application, MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE s/No. s/No ,