Dismissed

Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Jul 2012CRM-M/15625/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that the gravity of the offense and the petitioner's lack of cooperation with the investigating agency justified custodial interrogation, rejecting the defense that liability lay solely with the employer company.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed; custodial interrogation was deemed necessary.

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-15625 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-15625 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.07.2012

Gurpreet Singh

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: - Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. *****

¶12

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶13

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.190 dated 18.11.2011 under Sections 406/420 IPC and Section 24 Immigration Act, 1983 registered at Police Station Phase-I, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

¶14

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

¶15

-2-

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. M-15625 of 2012 (O&M)

¶17

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.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Investigating Officer, 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 abroad.

¶19

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.84 dated 12.4.2012 under Sections 406/420 IPC and Section 24 of the Emmigration Act, 1983 and FIR No.162 dated 3.10.2011 under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC at Police

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M-15625 of 2012 (O&M)

¶21

-3-

¶22

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.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge

¶25

July 26, 2012 R.S.

Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Alias Sinder Vs State of Haryana

R.K.Tandon Vs State Ut Chandigarh

Harinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daljit Singh Vs Balbir Kaur

Shingara Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harish Sethi Vs State of Punjab