Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S. Madaan, J.
Piara Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM -M-25799-2020(O&M)
Decided On : 08-03-2021
Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr.J.S. Ghuman, Dag, Punjab, for the Respondent.
The judgment establishes that advanced age does not exempt individuals from criminal activities and emphasizes the significance of custodial interrogation for thorough investigations.
Headnote:
Pre-arrest Bail - Criminal Law - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - IPC 420/406 - Custodial Interrogation - FIR No. 197 of 2020 - Section 323, 365 IPC - 1997(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 268
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, aged 95, sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of cheating and fraud. The complainant accused the petitioner of deceiving him of a sum of Rs.6,50,000 by promising migration to America and not fulfilling the commitment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's age did not exempt him from criminal activities and noted that he had issued cheques to the complainant, which were dishonoured. The court also highlighted the petitioner's involvement in another criminal case and the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's eligibility for pre-arrest bail, the credibility of the complainant, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a thorough investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that advanced age does not guarantee innocence and highlighted the importance of custodial interrogation for eliciting useful information. It also noted that the credibility of the complainant could be challenged during the trial but not for the purpose of pre-arrest bail.
Final Decision: The petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed, and the court clarified that the decision did not impact the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT
H.S. Madaan, J. - Case taken up through video conferencing.
2. This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail has been filed by the petitioner - Piara Singh, aged about 95 years, resident of village Behluwal, Batala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, an accused in FIR No.39 dated 4.3.2020 under Sections 420/406 IPC, registered with Police Station City, Batala, District Gurdaspur.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution story are that criminal machinery in this case was set into motion by complainant Kuldip Singh son of Sh.Surjit Singh, resident of village Ghasitpur, Batala, District Gurdaspur, who in the written complaint submitted by him addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Police District Batala levelled allegations that present petitioner Piara Singh along with Manjit Singh Maruti son of Sucha Singh, resident of Mehta Nangal, Amritsar and Sucha Singh, resident of Amritsar had cheated him of a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- by giving him allurement of managing his migration to America but he neither fulfilled his commitment nor returned his money to him, rather gave him threats. On receipt of the said complaint, the matter was inquired into and then formal FIR was registered.
4. Apprehending his arrest in this case, the present petitioner had approached the Court of Sessions at Gurdaspur seeking grant of pre-arrest bail by filing an application, which was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. However, his such application was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide detailed order dated 3.8.2020. As such, the present petitioner has come to this Court by way of filing the instant petition praying for the similar relief, which request is being opposed by the State counsel.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the records.
6. Pre arrest bail is a discretionary relief and is to be granted in exceptional cases and not in routine. It is meant to save the innocent persons from harassment and inconvenience and not to screen the culprits from arrest and custodial interrogation.
7. In the instant case, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and there are clear allegations of his having cheated the complainant and played fraud with him on giving allurement of ensuring his migration to America but without actually doing that and fleecing him of a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-, in the process.
8. The main ground of defence put forward on behalf of the petitioner/accused while seeking pre-arrest bail is that he is 95 years old and he being in evening of his life could not be expected to get involved in such type of criminal acts and that a false FIR has been got recorded against him.
9 However, I am not impressed by this contention. No doubt senior citizens are entitled to be treated with courtesy and due regard, but human greed does not accept bar of age, sex, race etc. A person of very advanced age may not be able to shed vice of greed and would indulge in criminal acts to amass money. Therefore, advanced age is no guarantee of a person being not indulging in criminal activities. It has to be taken note of that petitioner/accused had issued two cheques to the complainant Kuldip Singh dated 10.7.2019 and 11.7.2019, in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs each total Rs.4 lakhs. If the accused had not received any money from the complainant, then where was the occasion to issue such cheques by him to the complainant; that rather corroborates the allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR that he had paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to the complainant. Those cheques when presented to the banker of petitioner/accused, had been dishonoured.
10. Another argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the complainant himself is involved in several criminal cases, as such he should not be believed with regard to truthfulness of allegations in the FIR.
11. However, I do not find this contention to be acceptable. The credibility of the complainant can b
