Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Narinder Singh son of Harbhajan Singh, has directed the present petition for the grant of anticipatory

bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No. 42 dated 12.06.2013, on accusation of having committed the

offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Ghanie Ke Bangar, District Gurdaspur, invoking the

provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after

deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

EX FACIE, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case, so, he is entitled to the concession

of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well.

According to the prosecution, petitioner-Narinder Singh and his other co-accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, cheated six persons,

received and misappropriated an amount of Rs. 32 lacs ( Rs. 6 lacs & Rs. 2 lacs from each person) on the false promise, to provide them jobs in

the Forest Department. It was claimed that although the accused have assured that the aggrieved persons would be called for interview and receive

the appointment letters from the Forest Department, but neither they have managed any job for them, nor returned the impugned amount.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner and his other co-accused

have hatched a criminal conspiracy, cheated the persons mentioned therein on the false promise of getting them jobs in the Forest Department,

received and misappropriated their huge amount of Rs. 32 lacs.

Meaning thereby, since, direct allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating and misappropriation of the huge amount are assigned to the

petitioner, so, his custodial interrogation is essential in this relevant context. To my mind, if the petitioner is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail,

then the police will be deprived from recovering the impugned huge amount of poor persons, unearth the scam, collect evidence and effective

investigation, which would naturally adversely affect and weaken the case of the prosecution.

Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest

and effective 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. 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. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations and gravity of the commission of offences in question, to

me, no extra-ordinary ground, much less cogent, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of

trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so

recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail.