'Seriousness Of Offence No Ground To Cancel Pre-Arrest Bail': P&H High Court Refuses To Cancel Bail In Fake ED Raid & Extortion Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that seriousness of offence cannot justify transfer of a criminal trial, reiterating that the power of transfer under Section 448 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 408 CrPC) must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.The Court refused to cancel pre-arrest bail of a man accused of posing as ED officer in order to extort money.Justice Sumeet Goel noted that, "no material has been placed on record to prima facie establish that respondent No.2 has influenced witnesses or obstructed the course of justice in the pending trial. Furthermore, the seriousness of the offence, by itself, is not a ground seeking cancellation of bail, once the accused has been found entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail and has complied with the conditions imposed therein. In the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing material showing violation of bail conditions or misuse of liberty by respondent No.2, this Court does not find any justification to exercise the extraordinary power of cancellation of anticipatory bail."The Court was hearing a plea filed by the complainant, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused.The FIR was registered on the complaint of Vijay Kumar, who alleged that on March 29, 2023, three persons arrived at his house in a Tata Harrier car and posed as ED officers. They allegedly threatened him with false implication in a tax case and demanded ₹5 lakh, out of which ₹2.5 lakh was allegedly paid. Subsequent verification revealed that no ED raid had taken place, leading to registration of the FIR under multiple IPC provisions including Sections 420, 467, 471, 384, 389, 120-B, among others.During investigation, co-accused Inzamam-ul-Haq @ Inzu was arrested and recoveries were effected. The accused was granted interim anticipatory bail on July 20, 2023, which was confirmed on September 20, 2023, after he joined investigation.The petitioner contended that after obtaining anticipatory bail,the accused pressured and threatened him to withdraw the FIR, allegedly visiting his workplace along with associates. It was argued that this amounted to gross misuse of bail and violation of conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC. Emphasis was placed on the serious nature of the offence, involving impersonation of public officials and extortion, to seek cancellation of bail.The State opposed the plea, stating that the accused had joined investigation, cooperated with the SIT, and recoveries were made pursuant to his disclosure. The challan had already been presented, charges framed, and the trial was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur Jhirka. The State did not assert that the accused had misused bail or interfered with the investigation or trial.After hearing the submissions, the Court relied upon its earlier decision in Dinesh Madan v. State of Haryana (CRM-M-9029-2023), reiterating the settled distinction between cancellation of bail and setting aside of a bail order.“Cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from the initial grant of bail and can be ordered only upon supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty, intimidation of witnesses, or violation of bail conditions,” the judge said.The Court noted that the allegations of threats were based solely on complaints by the petitioner, without any supporting material to prima facie establish interference with the trial or intimidation of witnesses. It further held that seriousness of the offence alone is not a ground for cancellation of bail once the accused has complied with bail conditions.Finding no clear, cogent or convincing material to show misuse of anticipatory bail or obstruction of justice, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary power under Section 439(2) CrPC.Accordingly, the petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the pending trial.Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.Mrs. Mahima Yashpal, Senior DAG Haryana. Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for respondent No.2.Title: Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and anotherClick here to read order

'Seriousness Of Offence No Ground To Cancel Pre-Arrest Bail': P&H High Court Refuses To Cancel Bail In Fake ED Raid & Extortion Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags