CRM-M/61125/2022 of GURVEER SINGH Vs STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH on 30 December 2022

107IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-61125-2022 Date of Decision: 30.12.2022

Gurveer Singh ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of U.T. Chandigarh .......Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present: Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Bali, Addl. PP, UT, Chandigarh.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Prayer in the present petition is for the grant of anticipatory bailto the petitioner in a case FIR No.277 dated 20.10.2021, registered underSection 379 IPC at Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner thatthe petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that theFIR has been lodged by complainant Sunil Kumar on the basis of theallegations that on 25.08.2021 at about 6:00 pm, he went to the market andparked his motorcycle No.CH01BT4241 Grey BLK Colour Eng. No.37458Chasis No.17170 Model 2018, at Sector-38 D, Chandigarh and on his returnhe found his motorcycle missing. He submits that the complainant lodgedthe present FIR two months thereafter i.e. on 20.10.2021. He submits thatthe conduct of the complainant in lodging the FIR after about two months istotally unreasonable. He further submits that the petitioner is not evennamed in the FIR. He submits that lateron the Police registered another FIRNo.195 dated 18.10.2021 under Section 379 IPC and the petitioner wasarrested in that case. He submits that after arrest of the petitioner in FIRNo.195, the petitioner was named in the present FIR i.e. No.277. He submits

that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that thepetitioner has been falsely roped in by the Investigating Agency. He submitsthat the petitioner is innocent and he deserves to be granted anticipatorybail.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by learnedcounsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the complainant lodged thepresent FIR after returning from UP and during the investigation of anothercase FIR No.195 dated 18.10.2021, it was revealed that the petitioner hadstolen the motorcycle of the complainant, which was recovered from him.He has further stated that the petitioner is involved in other cases of thesimilar nature and as such he is not entitled to be granted the benefit ofanticipatory bail.

Heard.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing therecord, it is apparent that motorcycle of the complainant was stolen on25.08.2021. As per allegations in the FIR, as the complainant belonged to UPand hence, he lodged the FIR after returning from there. Thereafter, thepetitioner was arrested in another FIR No.195 mentioned above and duringinvestigation the motorcycle of the complainant was recovered from thepetitioner. The record would also show that the petitioner is involved in twotheft cases and the stolen motorcycle was recovered from him.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State represented by CBI Vs.Anil Sharma,(1997) 7 SCC 187 has held as under:- “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI thatcustodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientedthan questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with afavorable order under Section 438 if the code. In a case like this

effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendousadvantage in disintering many useful informations and alsomaterials which would have been concealed. Succession suchinterrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that heis well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during thetime he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such acondition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that thecustodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the personbeing subjected to third degree methods need not becountenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by allaccused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume thatresponsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task ofdisintering offences would not conduct themselves asoffenders.”

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs.

State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 has held as under:- “31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposedaccusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering theends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object beingto injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, adirection for the release of the applicant on bail in the event ofhis arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if itappears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant,that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he willflee from justice, such an order would not be made. But theconverse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is tosay, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule thatanticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposedaccusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally,that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that theapplicant will abscond. There are several other considerations,too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which mustweigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, thecontext of the events likely to lead to the making of thecharges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence notbeing secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension thatwitnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of thepublic or the state" are some of the considerations which thecourt has to keep in mind while deciding an application foranticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations waspointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622,which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 whichcorresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is ofparamount consideration to remember that the freedom of theindividual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it isfor the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seekinganticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumptionof innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on hisfreedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court maythink fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that ifarrested, he shall be enlarged on bail.

In the abovesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thatthe Court is to draw a balance between the right of liberty of the individualand overall interest of the society. However, overall interest of the societywould prevail upon the right of liberty of the individual. The Hon’ble ApexCourt in plethora of judicial precedents has time and again reiterated thatwhile considering the anticipatory bail the Court is to take intoconsideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accusedtampering with the evidence and probabilities of fleeing from justice etc.The Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on thesociety as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion whichcan be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances. Weighing the facts and circumstances of the case on the anvil of law settled, this Court is of theopinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the extraordinarypower by this Court in their favour. Resultantly, the petition being devoid ofany merit is hereby dismissed.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)30.12.2022JUDGEsharmilaWhether Speaking/Reasoned:Yes/NoWhether Reportable:Yes/No