IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
Gurmeet Kaur – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 32642 of 2022
Decided On : 14-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition and factual allegations (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for and against anticipatory bail (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis and interpretation of the law (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. decision regarding the principles for granting anticipatory bail (Para 15) |
| 5. final decision and implications for the trial (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing no CRM- M-32642-2022 titled as Gurmeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and CRM- M-1321-2023 titled as Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab . For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-32642- 2022 as both these petitions are arising out of the same FIR.
2. The prayer these petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.0058 dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 420 , 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, 1860 at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the FIR in question was registered against three accused namely (1) Gurmeet Kaur (petitioner in CRM-M-32642-2022) wife of Bohar Singh (2) Rajinder Singh (CRM- M-1321-2023), MGNREGA Mate and (3) Charanjit Singh, Gram Rozgar Sewak on the basis of letter No.1745 dated 08.02.2022 of the District Social Audit Coordinator, Sri Muktsar Sahib. The first allegation is that the petitioners along with Charanjit, Jaspal Singh and Sukhdev Singh received a total amount of Rs.1,16,206/- in their accounts out of the funds received under the MGNREGA scheme. The second allegation pertains to as many as 13 accused who received amounts in the their bank accounts but had never worked under the MGNREGA scheme. After a detailed inquiry on the allegations, it was found that the petitioners along with their co-accused Charanjit Singh after hatching a criminal conspiracy had forged official record and cheated the Government of an amount of Rs.18,75,893/-.
4. During the investigation, the names of thirteen persons i.e. (1) Satwinder Singh son of Harmeet Singh (2) Parvir Kaur @ Parveen Kaur wife of Satwinder Singh (3) Gurjeet Singh son of Wazir Singh (4) Jassandeep Singh son of Harmeet Singh (5) Ramandeep Singh son of Karnail Singh (6) Raj Kamal son of Gurdeep Singh (7) Sukhdev Singh son of Balvir Singh (8) Ajay Kumar son of Budh Ram (9) Jagmeet Singh son of Amarjeet Singh (10) Amanpreet Kaur wife of Jagmeet Singh (11) Harpreet Kaur daughter of Daleep Singh (12) Jaspal Singh son of Sher Singh and (13) Bohar Singh son of Jaspal Singh were nominated in the FIR in question. There are now sixteen accused in the FIR in question.
5. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide order dated 26.04.2022 constituted a Special Investigation Team consisting of Sh. Mohan Lal, PPS, S.P. (D), Sri Muktsar Sahib (Incharge), Sh. Amarjeet Singh, PPS, D.S.P., Sub-Division, Sri Muktsar Sahib (Member), Sh. Manavjeet Singh, PPS, D.S.P. (CAW & C), Sri Muktsar Sahib and Inspector Jasvir Singh, S.H.O. Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib (Member) to investigate the matter. Later on, the S.S.P., Sri Muktsar Sahib vide order dated 16.07.2022 constituted the Special Investigation Team consisting of S.P. (D), Sri Muktsar Sahib (Incharge), D.S.P., Sub-Division), Sri Muktsar Sahib (member), D.S.P. (CAW&C), Sri Muktsar Sahib (Member) and S.H.O., P.S. Sadar, Sri Muktsar Sahib (Member) to investigate the matter.
6. During the investigation conducted by the S.I.T. so far, incriminating evidence has come on file against all the accused including the petitioners. The facts of the investigation are as under:-
The absence of custodial interrogation does not justify granting anticipatory bail; the prima facie case against the accused must be the primary consideration.
In financial misconduct cases involving public funds, anticipatory bail may be denied if the allegations are serious and investigations require custodial interrogation of the accused.
The court affirmed that serious fraud allegations necessitate custodial interrogation, and delay in FIR does not negate the urgency for investigation.
The court established that a person cannot be deemed a proclaimed offender without a formal declaration under Section 82(4) CrPC, allowing for the possibility of anticipatory bail.
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.