Jimmy Mittal vs State Of Punjab & Others

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

92

21.08.2020

Mulepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib

406, 420, 201 IPC and 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014

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

In Note 1 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

The allegations pertain to cheating the complainant on assuring visa under the garb of payment of money.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.

REASONING:

The sly manner in which the petitioner be-fooled the complainants, told them they have got Visas for Canada, and even drove them to Delhi, points out that the petitioner has primafacie done acts of cheating and thugee. The argument that the dispute related to a lease deed (Annexure P-3), it’s perusal does not make out a case for bail to the petitioner. Thus, given the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

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. Padam Narain 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.

In the light of these judicial precedents coupled with the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC.

Even earlier, the petitioner had filed a bail under section 438 CrPC before this court and registered as CRM-M-32145-2022; however, vide a very detailed order dated 23-02-2022, a co-ordinate bench of this court had dismissed the said bail petition. The question of the maintainability of the second bail petition is not being discussed because this court did not find the case for bail on merits; thus, there is no adjudication about the issue of maintainability of the second bail petition.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.