Criminal Misc. No. M-12191 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-12191 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:05.09.2009 Anil .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Anil under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking his anticipatory bail in case FIR No.203 dated 9.9.2008 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC at Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat. The said case was registered on the complaint of Block and Panchayat Officer, Sonepat and upon enquiry against Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Rewli, it was found that he deposited Rs.1,68,67,206/- with United Bank of India Sonepat in Saving Bank Account No.1466010004336 dated 28.3.2008 which he had received from the sale of Shamlat land of Gram Panchayat and the said proceeds have not been shown in the column of income in the cash book from which it is not known that the compensation amount has been received by the Gram Panchayat. As per allegations in the complaint, Ravinder Kumar, Sarpanch has made the signatures of Pardeep, Gram Sachiv on the bank account opening form on Criminal Misc. No. M-12191 of 2009 (O&M) -2- which there is identification of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sonepat but the signatures on the seal of BDPO are not in fact of BDPO, Sonepat and he forged the signatures of Gram Sachiv and BDPO at the time of opening of the said account. There are further allegations against Sarpanch that he has withdrawn Rs.1,66,00,000/- from the above said account along with Anil (present petitioner) who has also received Rs.6 lacs in his account and Rs.25 lacs, he has withdrawn cash without the permission of Deputy Commissioner and grabbed the said amount for their personal use and misappropriated the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that Rs. 6 lacs have been credited in his bank account which was joint account of petitioner and Ravinder Kumar Sarpanch. That the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged account and has never used this account. If any transaction has been done with this account that has been done by Ravinder Kumar Sarpach, elder brother of the petitioner. That the petitioner has never operated the aforesaid alleged account and even he has no knowledge about the transaction relating to his account. The petitioner has never grabbed any amount from the aforesaid account. To controvert these submissions, the learned State Counsel agitated at the bar that as per the police record on 21.7.2008, an amount of Rs.6 lacs was credited into the account of the petitioner. That Form No.6 bears the signatures of the petitioner. I have well considered the rival contentions. As per the Criminal Misc. No. M-12191 of 2009 (O&M) -3- evidence collected during investigation, the bank account of the petitioner reflects that an amount of Rs.6 lacs has been credited to his account. The form referred to by the learned State Counsel too bears his signatures. The petitioner had put his signatures on the cheque of Rs.25 lacs. All this clearly goes to show the involvement of the petitioner in the instant case. In re: State Represented By the C.B.I v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 268 (SC), it has been held as under:- “We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” Criminal Misc. No. M-12191 of 2009 (O&M) -4- The provisions of Section 438 ibid cannot be invoked where custodial interrogation is necessary or may hamper proper investigation. A Court considering an application under this Section must strike a balance between the rights of an accused and the duties and obligation conferred upon an investigating agency. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, I do not deem it a fit case to admit anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. September 05, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE