Amandeep Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The compendium of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail, filed by petitioners Amandeep Singh and Ramanjit Singh alias Ramandeep sons of Ram Singh and emanating from the record, is that, complainant Basant Lal son of Krishan (for brevity ''the complainant'') was dealing in transportation business in the name and style of M/s. Azad Road Lines Transport. On 04.11.2012, the petitioners along with their co-accused came to his (complainant) office with a truck-trolla, having ten tyres, bearing fake registration No. RJ-19-G-4783 and asked the complainant to load the goods. After settling the rate, the complainant prepared the consignment note (builty) of 723 bags of basmati rice, weighing 35 kg each per bag, in the name of Joshan Food Jalalabad to Tarn Taran and loaded in the truck of the petitioner. The consignment was dispatched to its destination at about 10.00 PM on 04.11.2012. According to the complainant, on 14.11.2012 he received a telephone call from the accountant of Joshan Food and M/s. Arora Trading Company, Commission Agent that they have not received the Basmati Rice/goods loaded in the truck of the petitioners. He made inquiry and came to know that in fact petitioner Amandeep Singh is owner of truck bearing actual registration No. PB-30-F-9860 but he has changed the number plate of the truck and put a fake plate indicating the number of the truck as RJ-19-IG-4783 to cheat the complainant. The 723 bags of basmati rice did not reach the destination, which were misappropriated by the petitioners-accused. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioners along with his other co-accused, have hatched a criminal conspiracy, changed the fake number plate of their truck, cheated him and misappropriated the 723 bags of basmati rice. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by virtue of FIR No. 386 dated 24.11.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station City Tarn Taran, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

Having exercised their right and remained unsuccessful in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, now the petitioners have preferred the instant petition in this Court, for the grant of pre-arrest bail in the indicated case, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, so, they are entitled to concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

As is evident from the record that very serious and direct allegations of heinous offences, are assigned to the petitioners that they along with their co-accused, have hatched a criminal conspiracy, changed the number plate of their truck in order to cheat the complainant. They loaded the 723 bags in the said truck but the commodity did not reach its destination. In this manner, the accused have cheated the complainant and misappropriated 723 bags of basmati rice.

Not only that during the course of preliminary hearing, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court (M.M.S. Bedi, J.), has passed the following order on May 30, 2013:-

The petitioners are directed to join investigation on 8.6.2013 or on any other date as required by the Investigating Officer to facilitate the investigation regarding misappropriation of 723 bags of Basmati which were entrusted by the complainant - commission agent to the petitioners for delivery at Jalalabad. In case of petitioners'' joining investigation, they will be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer.

For arguments, now to come up on 13.8.2013.

The interim bail was again extended to enable the petitioners to join the investigation and to return the 723 bags of basmati rice to the complainant, by this Court, by means of order dated August 13, 2013.

At this stage, on instructions from Investigating Officer, learned State counsel, has submitted that the petitioners have neither complied with the indicated directions nor returned the 723 bags of basmati bags to the complainant and if the anticipatory bail is allowed, the recovery is not possible from him.

Therefore, taking into consideration, the allegations of grave and heinous offences of cheating and misappropriation, to me, the petitioners are not at all entitled to anticipatory bail. If they are allowed the benefit of pre-arrest bail, then, the police would be deprived from, removing the curtain, unearth manner and magnitude of the scam, recovery of 723 bags of basmati rice, case property and effective investigation. It would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which to my mind is not legally permissible.

Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of case property from the main accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the pre-arrest bail. Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the trial of main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail only.