Crl. Misc. No. M-35841 of 2010 9O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35841 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2010 Jasbir Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J (Oral). Petitioner Jasbir Singh son of Diwan Singh, has applied for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No. 517 dated 22.10.2010, for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 406,420 and 506 of IPC, by the police of Police Station City Kaithal, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that in the month of June, 2009, petitioner Jasbir Singh met complainant Vinay Tandon and promised/offered him a work permit of Canada, if he (complainant) pays him Rs.Nine lakhs. The complainant called his brother Vikas Tandon and his friend Anil Kumar and paid Rs.6,75,000/- to the petitioner for sending him to Canada on work permit. According to the complainant that the petitioner has neither provided him the work permit nor returned the amount up to 23.2.2010 despite the settlement in the Panchayat. The complainant went to his house but the petitioner flatly refused to return the money. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner has cheated the complainant and misappropriated his amount of Rs.6,75,000/-. He neither provided him the work permit of Canada, nor returned the money. On the basis of aforesaid Crl. Misc. No. M-35841 of 2010 9O&M) -2- allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Vinay Tandon, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 5. However, the main arguments of the learned counsel, that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and since, there is no material/evidence against him, so he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record, that there are direct allegations against the petitioner that he cheated the complainant and misappropriated his amount of Rs.6,75,000/- frivolously. As the amount is yet to be recovered from the petitioner, therefore, to me, his custodial interrogation is essential in this case in order to elicit the truth and to complete the chain of the prosecution evidence. 7. The anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depend on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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 the normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see that investigation in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. 8. So, taking into consideration nature and gravity of the accusation and Crl. Misc. No. M-35841 of 2010 9O&M) -3- the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in this regard. 9. In the light of the 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. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) December 07, 2010 JUDGE G.Arora