Manpreet Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Manpreet Singh, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 177 dated 26.12.2020, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Daresi, Ludhiana. The petitioner had previously been granted interim bail on 18.03.2021. The allegations stemmed from the petitioner, a bank employee, allowing Yashita Jain to operate a bank locker on 12.11.2020, despite her husband, Sahil Jain, being in custody. The petitioner claimed to have acted in good faith, believing Sahil Jain to be a regular customer and Yashita Jain to be in urgent need. The petitioner stated he had no knowledge of Sahil Jain's arrest and was not a beneficiary. He had joined the investigation as per the interim bail order. The State, through the learned counsel, did not dispute that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was no longer required for further inquiry.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and made the interim bail absolute. The primary issue was the petitioner's entitlement to anticipatory bail. The Court considered the petitioner's statement made under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017, where he explained his actions of allowing Yashita Jain to operate a bank locker in good faith, believing her husband to be a regular customer and her having expressed urgency. The Court noted that the petitioner had no knowledge of Sahil Jain's arrest and was not a beneficiary. Crucially, the Court was informed that the petitioner had joined the investigation as per the interim bail order, and the State's counsel did not dispute this fact, further stating that the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation. Based on the petitioner's cooperation and the lack of necessity for further custodial interrogation, the Court found no impediment to granting anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that when an accused has joined the investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation, and the allegations do not prima facie indicate the need for custodial detention for unearthing facts, anticipatory bail can be granted. The interim bail granted on 18.03.2021 was made absolute subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 177 dated 26.12.2020, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that his actions, at most, constituted a violation of RBI guidelines by allowing Yashita Jain to operate a bank locker. He asserted he had no knowledge of Sahil Jain's arrest and was not a beneficiary of any alleged wrongdoing. He further submitted that he had cooperated with the investigation by appearing before the SHO/Investigating Officer and joining the investigation as directed by the interim bail order. Revenue/State's arguments: The complainant-CBIC, through its counsel, argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to ascertain the facts, particularly how he allowed Yashita Jain to operate the bank locker despite her husband being in custody. However, the State's counsel, upon instructions, did not dispute the factual position that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was no longer required for further inquiry.