Ram Niwas Jindal vs State of Haryana

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 263 dated 14.03.2009, registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. He refers to Annexure P-14, Memo of Understanding, and states that the compromise has been reached between the parties. He further submits that interim bail has been allowed to the co-accused, Sandeep Somany. The main accused, Vinod Saini, who initially entered into agreement to sell with the petitioner, further entered into an agreement to sell dated 05.01.2009, with M/s. UFIPL Infrastructure Ltd., by misrepresenting that he is the GPA holder of the petitioner.

Notice of motion.

At this stage, Mr. S.S. Grewal (Nabha), Advocate, causes appearance on behalf of the complainant and states that as against the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner, no compromise has been reached between the parties. It is further stated that a cheque of Rupees fifty lacs was issued to the petitioner which stands encashed by him.

Heard.

The alleged GPA in favour of the petitioner has been found to be a forged document in the enquiry. An amount of Rupees fifty lacs, stands transferred in his account, which is yet to be recovered. Hon''ble the Apex Court, in State Rep. by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, , has held as under:--

We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order u/s 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. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail during the time he is 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 a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring would not conduct themselves as offenders.

Therefore, no case for grant of relief sought is made out. Dismissed.