Court emphasizes the gravity of the allegations involving forgery and societal impact, necessitating custodial interrogation.
In a significant decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the second anticipatory bail petition filed by Sonu and others, accused of cheating and forgery in a high-profile case involving fabricated government documents. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sumeet Goel, underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the societal implications of such offenses, necessitating thorough custodial interrogation.
The case pertains to FIR No. 0022 dated January 24, 2024, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471. The petitioners, Sonu, Vikram @ Vikram Singh, and Ankush Yadav @ Ankit, allegedly exploited unemployed youths by promising government jobs in the Air Force, Army, and Military Engineering Service, extracting substantial sums of money under false pretenses.
Despite the petitioners' claim of a compromise with the complainant and partial repayment, the court highlighted that such agreements do not diminish the severity of the offenses. Justice Goel noted that the allegations involve a well-coordinated conspiracy to fabricate government documents and falsely assure employment, which has serious societal ramifications.
The court referred to the precedent set in Bhisham Singh v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that while second anticipatory bail petitions are maintainable under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., they require significant changes in circumstances or fresh grounds. In this case, the court found no substantial change or new grounds justifying reconsideration of the bail plea.
Justice Goel remarked on the necessity for custodial interrogation to uncover the truth behind the alleged conspiracy and reiterated that the mere compromise between parties does not justify the granting of anticipatory bail in cases involving grave offenses like forgery and exploitation.
The rejection of the bail plea sends a strong message regarding the judiciary's stance on maintaining the integrity of public institutions and deterring fraudulent activities that undermine societal trust.
Bottom line:-
Second or successive anticipatory bail petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are maintainable in law; however, they require substantial change in circumstances or emergence of fresh grounds for reconsideration. The gravity and societal impact of allegations involving forgery, cheating, and exploitation undermine the petitioners' claim for anticipatory bail.
Statutory provision(s): Section 438 Cr.P.C., Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC
Sonu v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2897160
