Gurwinder Singh Bajwa vs State Of Punjab

Lalit Batra, J

In compliance of order dated 19.05.2021, learned counsel for petitioner has placed on record complete translated copy of FIR including police

proceedings as Annexure P/1.

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by petitioner-Gurwinder Singh Bajwa for grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.47 dated

01.02.2020 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot.

Learned counsel for petitioner inter alia contends that allegations levelled in the FIR are totally concocted, false and frivolous and there is no iota of

truth therein. He further submits that as per allegations as set up in the FIR, co-accused Satpal Singh had cheated complainant-Manpreet Singh to the

tune of Rs.16 Lakhs on the pretext of sending him abroad, which amount was given by complainant-Manpreet Singh to co-accused Satpal Singh after

having sold his land. He further submits that there is no specific allegation or attribution against the petitioner and even otherwise allegedly amount of

Rs.16 Lakhs was handed over to co-accused Satpal Singh, who has already been granted regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 19 . 04 . 2021

passed in He further urges that name of petitioner has surfaced in the array of accused on the basis of disclosure statement rendered by co-accused

Satpal Singh on the allegations that the work pertaining to sanction of visa for work permit for complainant- Manpreet Singh, was entrusted by him

(Satpal Singh) to the petitioner. He further submits that though petitioner has no nexus whatsoever with the alleged offence, he is ready to join

investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency, thus, concession of pre-arrest bail may be extended to him.

Notice of motion.

At the asking of Court, Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.

At this juncture, Mr . Lupil Gupta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant-Manpreet Singh.

Complete copies of paperbook have been supplied to learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for complainant.

Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the cause of petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner

alongwith co-accused namely Satpal Singh and Tajinder Singh had played active role in the commission of offence as work for obtaining visa for work

permit to send complainant-Manpreet Singh to Canada, was entrusted by co-accused Satpal Singh to the petitioner. He further urges that Passport as

well as other documents pertaining to complainant-Manpreet Singh were retained by petitioner and to this effect complainant-Manpreet Singh had

produced Audio CD regarding conversation of handing over Passport etc. to the petitioner. He further urges that despite repeated requests, petitioner

had failed to return the documents of complainant-Manpreet Singh. He further submits that petitioner being hand in glove with co-accused Satpal

Singh had obtained Passport and necessary documents of complainant-Manpreet Singh under the garb of getting prepared visa for work permit in

Canada for him (complainant) . He further urges that in this manner accused have cheated complainant-Manpreet Singh for huge amount of Rs.16

Lakhs on the pretext of sending him Canada, for which complainant had sold his land, but they failed to send complainant abroad. He further submits

that in view of nature of offence committed by the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is required to unearth the truth and as such he is not entitled

for the concession of pre-arrest bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the contents of petition.

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties, allegedly petitioner alongwith co-

accused cheated complainant-Manpreet Singh for huge amount of Rs.16 Lakhs on the pretext of sending him Canada. Pre-arrest bail is not to be

granted as a matter of routine/course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of

which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus

the facts and circumstances of each case. At the same time, it is well-settled that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent

normal procedure of arrest 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 in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in

granting the anticipatory bail. 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 in this relevant connection. Moreover, it cannot possibly be denied that the tendency and frequency of cheating

innocent persons and misappropriating their huge amount by such fake travel agents, have been increasing day-by-day, which needs to be curbed with

stern hands. In a given situation, custodial interrogation of petitioner is certainly required for complete and effective investigation. In case, same is

denied to the Investigating Agency that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, adversely affecting investigation, which is uncalled for. Keeping

in view totality of entire scenario and nature of offence, no extra-ordinary ground has been made out in favour of petitioner for his entitlement of pre-

arrest bail.

As a sequel to above, instant petition for grant of pre-arrest bail moved by the petitioner is dismissed.