CRM No.M-31565 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:1.11.2010 Mrs.Shefali w/o Shaminder Singh .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.H.P.S.Rahi, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) Invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioner-Shefali wife of Shaminder Singh, has instituted the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against her along with her other co-accused, by virtue of FIR No.178 dated 7.10.2010 (Annexure P1) for the commission of an offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC and section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983, by the police of Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana. 2. Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner-accused (Ph.95010-04301) promised complainant Gurdarshan Singh son of Jasbir Singh and his friend Jaspreet Singh to send them abroad (USA) and had taken Rs.7.50 lacs and the rest of the amount of Rs.3.50 lacs was deposited by them in the bank account No.002384100000257 of her brother Jaspreet Singh in Yes Bank, Ludhiana in the month of October, 2009. They asked her to return the amount, but the petitioner and her brother threatened them with dire consequences. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that the petitioner promised him and his friend to send them abroad (USA) and received an amount of Rs.11 lacs in this respect, but she neither sent them abroad nor returned the money, cheated them and mis-appropriated their amount. When they asked to return the amount, the CRM No.M-31565 of 2010 (O&M) 2 petitioner and her brother threatened them with dire consequences. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of Gurdarshan Singh, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in- above. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 5. Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, so, she is not entitled to concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merits but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations of cheating and mis-appropriating the amount of Rs.11 lacs of the complainant and his friend by the petitioner. The amount is yet to be recovered. Taking into consideration the serious and glaring allegations of cheating and mis-appropriating the amount of the complainant and his friend, to me, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in this case in order to un-earth the scam and to elicit the truth. If the recovery is not effected, then the case of the prosecution is bound to fail. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to concession of anticipatory bail. 7. The anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.PC is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational power of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The Court should not be unmindful CRM No.M-31565 of 2010 (O&M) 3 of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the present petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. Needless to state that, nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) JUDGE 1.11.2010 AS