Meenu Aggarwal And Another vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioners, Meenu Aggarwal and her husband, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 242 dated 13.08.2020, registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Civil Line, Bhiwani. The FIR was lodged by the complainant, Ashok Kumar, alleging that the petitioners, his brother and other family members, deceived him to grab property. Specifically, it was alleged that petitioner No. 1, as proprietor of Mahima Fibers, transferred the complainant's share of land and obtained GST and Electricity Department licenses using a fabricated rent deed. The petitioners had previously been granted interim bail and were directed to join the investigation. The mediation process between the parties had failed.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. The primary reason for allowing the petition was the submission by the State counsel that the petitioners had joined the investigation and fully cooperated, and were not required for custodial investigation. While the complainant opposed the bail, alleging the use of a fabricated rent deed for obtaining GST and electricity licenses, the Court noted that the dispute involved documents whose authenticity was to be ascertained during investigation and trial. The Court observed that one party alleged fabrication, while the other denied execution and relied on a different document (Annexure P-3). Given that the petitioners had joined the investigation and were not required for custodial interrogation as per the State, the Court found the petition deserved to succeed. The interim bail order was made absolute. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering their cooperation with the investigation and the State's submission that custodial interrogation is not required? (Section 438 CrPC) Petitioner's argument: The petitioners have joined the investigation as directed by this Court and have fully cooperated. Therefore, the interim bail granted should be confirmed. Revenue/State's argument: The State counsel, based on instructions, submitted that the petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and are not required for custodial investigation. Complainant's argument: The complainant opposed anticipatory bail, alleging fraud and the use of a fabricated rent deed to obtain GST and electricity licenses. The complainant argued that custodial investigation is required for the recovery of the original document and to ascertain its source, as the petitioners have not submitted it. The complainant highlighted discrepancies in the rent deed, suggesting it was executed after the death of a signatory.