Ashutosh @ Sunny vs State Of Haryana

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

34

01.06.2022

Cyber Crime Gurugram, District Gurugram

419, 420, 120B IPC and 66- D of Information Technology (Amendment Act) 2008

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, on the allegations of cheating, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

In paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

Petitioner’s counsel argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

State’s counsel opposes the bail.

REASONING:

The allegations against the petitioner are of cheating the complainant’s father to the tune of Rs 7 lacs by impersonating as friend of father of complainant. As per reply of State, petitioner has also opened accounts of poor persons by tempting them to give Rs 5000/- each. The modus operandi of the accused in instant case suggests a malicious planning and deft execution.

Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is required. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner.

In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[19]. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional 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. PadamNarain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305].

In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[6]. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation 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.

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage.

Any observation 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.

Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.