Daljit Singh vs Union Territory Of J&K

Through the medium of instant bail application, the petitioner has sought bail in anticipation of his arrest in FIR No.31/2020 for offences under

Sections 420 and 120-B of RPC registered with Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu.

The facts giving rise to the filing of instant bail application are that a written complaint was lodged by Mandeep Singh and Gagandeep Kour with the

Crime Branch, wherein it has been alleged that they had conversation with one person, namely, Aditya from Mohali, who represented that he is having

a consultancy agency in the name of M/s VFS Global Associates with its office at Mohali (Punjab). The said person is alleged to have represented to

the complainants that he is having certain offers from Canada, thereby convincing them to part with their hard earned money in favour of said person

on the pretext of health insurance, medical check-up and processing fee for providing work visa of Canada to them. The complainants, accordingly,

paid a total amount of Rs.4,59,800/- to the aforesaid person.

A preliminary verification was conducted by the Crime Branch on the basis of this complaint, during which, it was found that a sum of Rs.59,000/-

was credited by the complainants to the account of the petitioner herein, an amount of Rs.80,000/- was credited by the complainants to the account of

one Lovpreet Singh and the remaining amount was paid in cash to M/s VFS Global Associates, Mohali. It was also established that the accused

Aditya from Mohali consultancy VFS Associates, Daljit Singh (petitioner herein) and Lovepreet Singh in connivance with each other and with mala

fide intention have duped the complainants of their hard earned money to the tune of Rs.4,59,800/- by adopting fraudulent means on the pretext of

providing them work visa of Canada. After establishment of these facts, a formal FIR No.31/2020 came to be registered and the investigation was set

into motion.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that, as per

the prosecution, the role of the petitioner is confined to payment of Rs.59,000/- into the account of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel,

mere crediting of the amount to the account of the petitioner, does not make out any offence against him. It has been contended that the petitioner is

ready to cooperate with the Investigating Agency in case he is admitted to anticipatory bail and that he would abide by all the conditions that may be

imposed by this Court in this regard.

The application has been resisted by the respondent by filing its reply thereto. In its reply, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has duped

the innocent complainants of their hard earned money by promising them green pastures. While reiterating the facts narrated in the FIR, the

respondent has submitted that the petitioner is absconding and that he is not cooperating with the Investigating Agency. It is further averred that the

investigation is still at its inception and whole contours of the crime are yet to be ascertained, which can be done only after custodial interrogation of

the petitioner and other co-accused, who are evading their arrest continuously.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

So far as the principles for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest are concerned, the same have been laid down by a Constitution Bench of the

Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565. The Court has, observed that

the question, whether to grant bail or not, depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the

judicial verdict. These circumstances include the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making

of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant’s presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be

tempered with and the larger interests of the public or the State.

Again in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Supreme Court, while laying down the guidelines for

grant of anticipatory bail, has observed as under:-

“69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other

purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-

arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after

application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide

whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an

offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be

granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that

extraordinary remedy.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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 anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights

conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.â€​

In the same judgment the Supreme Court, while observing that power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, emphasized the fact

that in cases of economic offences, which stand as a different class, the power has to be exercised more sparingly.

Analyzing the facts of the instant case in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it has to be noted that

during the preliminary verification of the complaint, it was found that a sum of Rs.59,000/- has been credited by the complainants in the bank account

of the petitioner. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that there is no material with the Investigating Agency to implicate the

petitioner in the FIR. So far as stage of investigation is concerned, the facts are extremely hazy, as the investigation is at its inception. The petitioner is

a person residing beyond the borders of the Union Territory of J&K and as per the Investigating Agency, he is absconding and evading arrest. Even,

co-accused have not been arrested as yet.

In these circumstances, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail in anticipation of his arrest, the whole investigation is likely to get derailed. For

investigation to progress further, the presence of the petitioner and co-accused before the Investigating Agency and their custodial interrogation is

absolutely necessary. The fact that the petitioner is absconding and is evading arrest disentitles him to the grant of discretionary relief in terms of

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition and the same, accordingly, dismissed.