2024 (2) TMI 558 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - allegation against the petitioner is that he in connivance with co-accused namely Arshdeep Singh and Ravinder Kumar, who were allegedly the thugs, he introduced the complainant to CA Arshdeep Singh and in return, he got a cut of Rs. 30,000/- which he had showed as a professional fee - HELD THAT - It remains undisputed that the petitioner had received Rs. 30,000/-. This Court has refrained from commenting further because all accused are not parties before this Court in the present case, and any observation would cause severe prejudice against them. Unfortunately, some professions in our country have become highly unethical, and the practitioners accept cuts for referring the work instead of referring the matters on a reciprocal basis or ethical or professional grounds. Although with a heavy heart, this Court cannot ignore the existence of such unethical practices, which are widely prevalent in many professions, including some of the unethical Chartered Accountants. There would be no justification for the petitioner for pre-trial incarceration and custodial interrogation subject to the condition that the petitioner shall fully cooperate for recovery of Rs. 30,000/-. Petitioner is directed to cooperate in the investigation for recovery of Rs. 30,000/- within 15 days. On failure to do so, the concerned Superintendent of Police shall apply for cancellation of bail, and bail would be cancelled on this ground alone. It is further clarified that the above observations are only to decide the present bail petition and for no other purpose. Petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
2. Allegations of extortion and blackmail.
3. Involvement of public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. Role of the petitioner in the alleged crime.
5. Justification for pre-trial incarceration and custodial interrogation.

Summary:

1. Petition for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 CrPC:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR, fearing arrest. The court had previously granted interim protection on 15.01.2024, which continued until the judgment.

2. Allegations of Extortion and Blackmail:
The complainant alleged that co-accused Gagandeep Singh and others, including a public servant, blackmailed him into paying Rs. 11,50,000 by falsely claiming there was a case against him in the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The complainant was coerced into believing and acting on this false information, resulting in extortion.

3. Involvement of Public Servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The FIR invoked Sections 7, 7-A, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, due to the involvement of Ravinder Kumar, a public servant who allegedly played a pivotal role in the extortion scheme.

4. Role of the Petitioner in the Alleged Crime:
The petitioner, Paramvir Singh, introduced the complainant to CA Arshdeep Singh, who falsely assured the complainant of handling the non-existent ED case. The petitioner received Rs. 30,000, which he claimed was a professional fee. The court noted that the petitioner had no direct knowledge of the nefarious designs of the other accused but had participated in the scheme by introducing the complainant to the co-accused.

5. Justification for Pre-Trial Incarceration and Custodial Interrogation:
The court found no justification for pre-trial incarceration and custodial interrogation of the petitioner, provided he cooperated in recovering the Rs. 30,000 within 15 days. Failure to do so would result in the cancellation of bail. The court emphasized that its observations were solely for deciding the bail petition and should not be cited by other accused.

Conclusion:
The petition for anticipatory bail was allowed, making the interim order dated 15.01.2024 absolute, with conditions for cooperation in the investigation. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →