IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUMEET GOEL, J.
Manoj Kumar Sondhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No. 28519 of 2023
Decided On : 06-03-2024
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 388, 506, 120-B; Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Sections 3, 4, 5 - The court emphasized the gravity of allegations involving sextortion and the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation, denying anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving serious allegations of sextortion and immoral trafficking, where they were accused of blackmailing individuals and running a brothel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioners were serious and involved a gang operating in sextortion, necessitating custodial interrogation to ensure a thorough investigation.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail given the serious nature of the allegations against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving serious allegations that could impede the investigation and societal interests.
Result: The petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SUMEET GOEL, J.
1. This order will dispose of aforesaid three petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner(s) seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Sections 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in FIR No. 41 dated 19.04.2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 388, 506 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 at Police Station Basti Bawa Khel, District Jalandhar.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner(s)) is as follows:
Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC(Cri) 933
D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran
Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain
Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain
Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
Anticipatory bail is not warranted in serious cases of sextortion where custodial interrogation is essential for a fair investigation.
Anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly in serious offences, balancing individual rights with the need for a fair investigation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.