The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed two petitions for anticipatory bail. The court held that the offences involved swindling huge amounts and noted the petitioner's lack of cooperation.
Disallowed the grant of anticipatory bail to both petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. M-12085 of 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-12085 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.07.2012
Gurpreet Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
Crl. Misc. No. M-18494 of 2012 (O&M)
Iqbal Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: - Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No. M-12085 of 2012). Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No. M-18494 of 2012). Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. *****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M-12085 of 2012 titled 'Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab' and Crl. Misc. No. M-18494 of 2012 titled 'Iqbal Singh vs. State of Punjab' arising out of the same FIR.
For brevity sake, facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No. M-12085 of 2012 titled 'Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab'.
This is a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.162 dated 3.10.2011 under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Phase-I, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
-2-
Crl. Misc. No. M-12085 of 2012 (O&M)
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner joined the company and has indicated that he was given appointment letter Annexure P-1 and has made reference to Annexure P- 2 indicating General Manager, Branch Manager and other members of the said company and petitioner as Media & Marketing Head. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant approached the company for going abroad as the said company is sending the persons for higher studies abroad. He further states that the amount allegedly paid by the complainant is deposited with the company and he had nothing to do with that money. Learned counsel further contends that since visa was not granted to the petitioner for going abroad, Amitesh Bhatia, who is alleged General Manager/MD of the company, paid part of the amount and some of the cheques were bounced. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Amitesh Bhatia was arrested and he has already been released on regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that Amitesh Bhatia has sworn an affidavit owning the responsibility that he is responsible for the acts. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had left the services of the company in September, 2011. He further contends that liability is of the company and not of the petitioner since he is an employee.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Sub Inspector Raghbir Singh, who is present in Court, states that petitioner was an active employee of the company and he was receiving and depositing the money in the account of the company. He further states that the petitioner is involved in other cases of identical nature whereby the people have been cheated and defrauded in the name of sending them
-3-
Crl. Misc. No. M-12085 of 2012 (O&M)
abroad.
After considering rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that huge amount has been swindled by the petitioner in the name of sending the people abroad. Petitioner cannot be granted relief of anticipatory bail only on the ground that he was merely an employee of the company and was receiving the money in the name of company. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and registration of other FIRs i.e. FIR No.190 dated 18.11.2011 and FIR No.84 dated 12.4.2012 under Sections 406/420 IPC and Section 24 of the Emmigration Act, 1983 at Police Station Phase-I, Mohali, against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is necessary. Although, the petitioner has joined the investigation, but he is not cooperating with the investigating agency.
Dismissed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge
July 16, 2012 R.S.
Gurpreet Singh
State of Punjab
Iqbal Singh
State of Punjab
PARAMJEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
