Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 1465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
Gurjinder Singh @ Raju & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
CRM-M-30874-2021
Decided On : 23-08-2021
Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. H.S. Grewal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the grant of anticipatory bail based on the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation and the wrongful denial of the complainant's fundamental right to access justice due to the delay in registering the FIR.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of taking gold ornaments and refusing to return them, leading to the registration of an FIR. The petitioners admitted their liability and agreed to pay the complainant the value of the gold. The court considered the lack of need for custodial interrogation and granted anticipatory bail, with conditions for payment and settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners deserved anticipatory bail due to the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation and absence of material justifying apprehension of fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence. The court also addressed the wrongful denial of the complainant's fundamental right to access justice and directed the state to pay compensation to the complainant for the delay in registering the FIR.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail, settlement between the parties, and the wrongful denial of the complainant's fundamental right to access justice due to the delay in registering the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of need for custodial interrogation, absence of material justifying apprehension of fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence, and the wrongful denial of the complainant's fundamental right to access justice due to the delay in registering the FIR.
Final Decision: The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail with conditions for payment and settlement. The state was directed to pay compensation to the complainant for the wrongful denial of his fundamental right to access justice.
JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar Tyagi- J. (Oral). - The case has been taken up for hearing through vide conferencing.
1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 96 dated 05.07.2021 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC) at Police Station E-Division, District Amritsar.
2. The above-said FIR was registered on written complaint (numbered on receipt as UID No. 1737657 dated 27.01.2020) made by Gurwinder Singh to the A.C.P., Amritsar City. In the complaint Gurwinder Singh, inter alia, alleged that on 09.12.2019 Gurjinder Singh @ Raju (petitioner No.l) and his brother Satinder Singh (petitioner No.2) had taken gold ornaments weighing 128 grams and 430 milligrams of the value of Rs. 5,39,100/- form him for showing the same to their customers agreeing to return the same but on demand they refused to return the same and criminally intimidated him. Pursuant to registration of FIR, the police is investigating the case.
3. This Court vide order dated 04.08.2021 while issuing notice of motion, granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners with direction to join the investigation.
4. The petition has been opposed by the respondent-State and the complainant but replies to the petition have not been filed by the respondent-State and the complainant.
5. In the course of hearing on 04.08.2021 the petitioners were alleged to have made statements admitting their liability in the preliminary inquiry conducted by the police and learned Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners had taken gold weighing 800 grams out of which gold weighing 700 grams had been returned and that the petitioner admit their liability qua gold weighing 100 grams and are ready to pay the amount equivalent to value thereof to the complainant within time period to be agreed upon by the parties or to be fixed by the Court.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel as well as learned Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in compliance with order dated 04.08.2021, the petitioners had joined the investigation and handed over gold weighing 100 grams to the Investigating Officer which can be got released by the complainant. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and interim anticipatory bail granted to them may be confirmed.
8. Learned State Counsel has acknowledged that in compliance with order dated 04.08.2021 passed by this Court, the petitioners had joined investigation and submitted that their custodial interrogation is not required for effecting any further recovery.
9. Learned Counsel for the complainant has stated that the petitioners had agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the value of 100 grams of gold to the complainant within time period to be agreed upon the parties or to be fixed by the Court and that total 128 grams of gold was to be returned by the petitioners. Recovery of the balance 28 grams of gold is pending. The petitioners do not deserve grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.
10. At this stage, learned Counsel of the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are ready to pay an amount of Rs. 5,39,000/- to the complainant and are also ready to settle the matter which mainly involves civil liability.
11. Learned Counsel for the complainant has also agreed that the amount equivalent to the value of 100 grams of gold comes to Rs. 5,39,000/- and in case payment thereof, the complainant has no objection to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and complainant is also ready to settle the matter.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required in the case and there is no material
