Criminal Misc. No. M-16869 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-16869 of 2009 Date of Decision:05.09.2009 Suresh Kumar .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Suresh Kumar 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, 471 of IPC at Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat. The case of the prosecution in brief is that in the year 2008 compensation was given in respect of the acquired land of Gram Panchayat Rewali. Ravinder Kumar Sarpanch received the compensation of Rs.1.68 crores and out of that, he misappropriated an amount of Rs.1.66 crores. During the course of investigation, the call details of Balwan Singh, the father of Ravinder Kumar Sarpanch and accused Suresh Kumar were obtained. It was found that one sale-deed in respect of the land measuring 8 kanals 5 marlas and another sale deed of 4 marlas were registered in the name of accused Suresh in Tehsil Safidon and as per the statement of property dealer, the sale consideration was paid by Balwan Singh and Criminal Misc. No. M-16869 of 2009 -2- Ravinder Kumar Sarpanch. From the statements of Joginder, Gurnam Singh, Joga Singh and Mahender recorded during the course of investigation, it was also found that the land was purchased at the rate of Rs.17.00 lacs per acre, but in the sale deeds, sale consideration were mentioned as per collector's rate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no relation with Ravinder Kumar Sarpanch. The petitioner has purchased one and half acre land in Village Malikpur with the sale proceeds of his own land situated at Village Puthar, District Panipat sold by him and by borrowing same amounts on interest. Thereafter,the petitioner received notice under Section 160/161 of Cr.P.C dated 25.5.2009 from the police calling upon him to join the investigation along with record of the land purchased by him at Village Malikpur and record of bank pass books. The petitioner's wife being ill, he himself could not go and he sent all the documents required by the Investigating Officer through speed post. The police has threatened the petitioner that Ravinder Kumar Sarpanch has purchased the land at Village Malikpur in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has no concern in any manner with the aforesaid Sarpanch. That Omi's mother's sister of petitioner used to live with the petitioner who has land at Village Begumpur, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. She intended to sell the land of her share and purchased the land with the petitioner. She had agreed to sell her land of Begampur against a total consideration of Rs.7 lacs to one Shri Satish and had received Rs.70,000/- as earnest money. The petitioner has borrowed Rs.4,70,000/- from one Surinder Singh on interest on 4.9.2008. So, by arranging the funds, he has purchased one and a half acre land at Village Malikpur against a total consideration of Rs.9,60,000/- Criminal Misc. No. M-16869 of 2009 -3- and that nobody else including Ravinder Sarpanch have any concern with the said land. To controvert these submissions, the learned State Counsel maintained that Ravinder Kumar Sarpanch has purchased the land at Village Malikpur in the name of the petitioner. I have well considered the rival contentions. The allegations in fact are that the land measuring 8 kanals 19 marlas was purchased in the name of the petitioner vide two different sale deeds dated 16.9.2008 at the rate of Rs.17.00 lacs per acre but in the sale deeds, the total sale consideration has been mentioned as Rs.9.16 lacs only. The entire sale consideration was paid by Balwan Singh and Ravinder Kumar Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rewli out of the funds of Gram Panchayat misappropriated by the said Sarpanch. Before this Court, it has been argued that the petitioner has borrowed Rs.4,70,000/- from one Surender Singh son of Dalel Singhon interest on 4.9.2008. A glance through the record would reveal that the petitioner has not placed any such document on the record in proof of this transaction of borrowing the said amount from Surender Singh. This matter relates to misappropriation of public money. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-16869 of 2009 -4- 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.” 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