PRATIBHA MANCHANDA V. STATE OF HARYANA

This case analysis is done by Sagili Bhavana Sree, A 2nd year law student at Damodaram Sanjivayya National University.

Citation: Appeal (Crl.), 1793 of 2023

Bench: Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar

Date of Judgement: 7th July,2023

INTRODUCTION

• Anticipatory bail is granted on the apprehension of the arrest for non-bailable offenses. Its primary motive is to protect the individual’s rights; no person should be confined unless proven guilty. The same was prescribed in section 438 of crpc. In Pratibha Manchanda vs State of Haryana, the provisions for granting anticipatory bail were stated.
• Anticipatory bail is basically granted on the basis of the gravity of the offense, its impact on society, the need for fair and free investigation, the individual criminal background, and his social, political, and financial status. While granting the bail, the court considers the chances of escape and the capability of tampering with the evidence.
• In this case, the court observed the balance between individual rights and protecting public interest while granting anticipatory bail.

FACTS

• The Appellants are senior persons who have owned and possessed land in Village Begampur Khatola, Gurugram, for over 30 years. The Appellants assert that they never sold the Subject Land to anyone or grant any power of attorney to a third party. According to their version of events, the territory has always been unquestionably theirs and has never been surrendered in any form or fashion to individuals other than the family.
• One day the appellants found that the prescribed property was given as power of attorney to the respondents, which appellants refused stating they actually never made any sale deed regarding the property and the documents were forged and fabricated.
• The FIR was filed in the police station and police arrested the respondents for interrogation. Later, the respondent filed for anticipatory bail before the Additional session judge, Gurugram, which apparently refused to grant the bail.
• The Respondent challenged the decision before the Punjab and Haryana high court, the court granted anticipatory bail and later, the decision is challenged before the supreme court.

ISSUES

1.  Whether anticipatory bail granted to respondent is valid?
2. Whether custodial interrogation of the Respondent is necessary?

CONTENTIONS

APPELLANTS

• Shri Saket Sikri, learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently contended that the High Court acted on the erroneous assumption that the alleged power of attorney in favor of Respondent is genuine. The original copy  has not been recovered by the police till date, and hence, custodial interrogation is required.
• The consideration of the alleged sale deed ­ Rs. 6.60 crores ­ is far less than the market value of the Subject Land, which is stated to be Rs. 50 crores.
• Respondent in collusion with other accused persons has carried out elaborate fraud against the Appellants, who are vulnerable owing to their age and the NRI status.

RESPONDENTS

• Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel representing Respondent vigorously defended High Court’s view and asserted that each and every allegation, contention, and submission made by the Appellants was factually and legally incorrect. Learned Senior Counsel argued that Respondent had originally purchased the land in question from the Appellants in the year 1996. However, at that time, there was a third­ party lease existing on the land. 
• Furthermore, the High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Respondent subject to strict conditions such as providing specimen signatures to the Investigating Officer and depositing Rs. 1.50 crores. The police have also obtained records from the Sub Registrar’s office and Respondent No. 2 has complied with all the conditions imposed on him by the High Court.

JUDGEMENT

•  The appeal is allowed under special leave of petition and the impugned order passed by the High Court granting prearrest bail to Respondent was set aside.
• The court directed the commissioner of the Gurugram to constitute a special investigation team to verify the facts with the sub-registrar in the custodial interrogation in strict accordance of the law.
• No interlocutory/interim order passed by the Civil Court shall obstruct the ongoing investigation. The Civil Court shall not, from this point forth, pass any such order in pending civil suits which may hamper the ongoing investigation.
• The Apex court stated that-‘ The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court’s discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.

CONCLUSION

Anticipatory bail is given to protect individual liberty and their fundamental rights, the apex court observed the increasing crimes on the vulnerability of a person’s age and NRI status, and to unveil the truth behind the case, it is necessary to constitute a custodial interrogation of the facts. Land scams are a persistent issue in India, scammers are often indulged in forging documents and manipulating vulnerable communities, to halt the perpetrators the judiciary and the police should get together to catch the fraudulent activities as the land scams not only result in financial loss but also disrupt the developmental projects.