Criminal Misc.No. M- 16384 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. M- 16384 of 2010 Date of decision:- 17.9.2010 Anand Parkash ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh , Sr. Advocate with Ms. Harpreet, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl.A.G. Punjab. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner Anand Parkash in FIR No.168 dated 18.11.2008, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Dera Bassi, District Mohali. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order pased by learned Additional Sesions Judge declining anticipatory bail of petitioner-accused, carefully. Brief facts are that the present FIR was lodged after the inquiry got conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar through Deputy Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, Mohali. It came out during the inquiry that co-accused Manav Kumar Mahajan, Vijay Kumar, Divya Mahajan, Sailinder Pal Singh, Diwakar Chaudhary, Ravi Kant Advocate, Anand Parkash (petitioner) Tarun Sethi, Pawan Mahajan alias Lucky and Jorawar Singh cheated Criminal Misc.No. M- 16384 of 2010 -2- complainant of rupees two crores by forging agreement/receipts while impersonating Jorawar Singh to be Ajit Singh and while opening an account in the bank in his name for selling Kothi No.84, Sector-9, Chandigarh. It came in the inquiry that petitioner-accused accompanied other co-accused on 18.11.2006 and they had taken rupees one crore and ten lakhs by various drafts and cheques in the name of Ajit Singh as a consideration for an agreement for selling Kothi No.84, Sector-9, Chandigarh belonging to Ajit Singh. A receipt of rupees one crore and sixty lakhs was also given on behalf of Ajit Singh. However, later on a fictitious account was opened in the name of Ajit Singh by Jorawar Singh co-accused impersonating as Ajit Singh and the amount was withdrawn. During investigation statement of co-accused Surenderpal son of Dara Masih was recorded, in which he stated that all the aforementioned persons including the petitioner-accused connived with each other and after committing the said cheating the amount was distributed amongst themselves and the share of the present petitioner-accused came to Rs.15,00,000/-, which was given to him. Case of the present petitioner-accused is similar to co- accused Diwakar Chaudhary, who was denied anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.5.2010 passed in Criminal Misc.No.M-34951 of 2009. In view of these facts, the allegations against the petitioner-accused are serious in nature. Hence, it is not such a case, in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused Anand Parkash. In the factual scenario, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is required. 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 Criminal Misc.No. M- 16384 of 2010 -3- 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.” In view of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition for anticipatory bail to the petitioner- accused Anand Parkash is dismissed. Order dated 28.6.2010 granting interim bail to the petitioner is vacated. September 17, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE