Harmeet Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner had already joined the investigation as per the interim order dated 21.05.2018. The Court observed that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required, a point also noted by a Coordinate Bench. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to custody. The interim bail granted to the petitioner was made absolute. The petitioner was directed to join the investigation whenever called upon and to abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Court explicitly stated that it was not discussing the facts of the case in minute detail and was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Harmeet Singh, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail. The FIR was registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations stated that the petitioner and another individual, Sanjeev Sood, received ₹12,04,667/- in cash to be paid to M/s Parasnath Organic Pvt. Ltd. This amount was intended for the purchase of industrial oil from M/s Parasnath Organic Pvt. Ltd. through M/s J.S.Enterprises, who were to provide a 5% refund of the GST. The grievance was that the amount was not deposited in the account and was subsequently sent to M/s Parasnath Organic Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner had joined the investigation pursuant to an interim order granting him bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No.65 dated 06.04.2018, registered at Police Station Maqsudan, Jalandhar Rural, under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that custodial interrogation was not required, as indicated by a Coordinate Bench's observation. He had already joined the investigation in compliance with the interim order, and therefore, sending him to custody would serve no useful purpose. Revenue's contention: The State of Punjab, represented by the learned State counsel, contested the petition. No specific arguments or reliance on any provisions, circulars, or precedents were recorded for the respondent.