The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a petition under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. The court found the petitioner's role in a loan fraud scheme prima facie disclosed, stating no reason to extend pre-arrest bail. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary.
Anticipatory bail petition dismissed; no pre-arrest bail granted.
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.
CRM-M-20111 of 2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20111 of 2016 Date of Decision : 01.03.2017
Rajeev Katoch
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Himanshu Puri, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Ghumman, Advocate for the complainant.
Surinder Gupta, J.
Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 57 dated 18.05.2016 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Division No. 2, Pathankot.
5 lacs to Satish Chauhan, who gave him a receipt issued by Awanshika Motor alongwith a quotation. The complainant took loan of 21,15,000/- from UCO Bank, Simbal Chowk, Pathankot and transferredJitender Kumar 2017.03.02 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20111 of 2016 -2-
this amount in the name of Awanshika Motor but for a period of one year and eight months vehicle was not given to the complainant, who ultimately found that he has been defrauded by Satish Chauhan and the petitioner.
21,15,000/-. This money was paid to Satish Chauhan. The complainant had filed a civil suit against Satish Chauhan alleging therein that this amount of 21,15,000/- was paid to him and an agreement was also executed between parties on 06.10.2015 wherein the complainant explained payment of `21,15,000/- to Satish Chauhan.21,15,000/- was transferred to the account of petitioner. This plea of petitioner has no meaning that he made this payment to Satish Chauhan. He was very well aware that this amount was transferred to his account by the bank from where the complainant has raised a loan for purchase of TATA vehicle. This shows connivance, common intention and the fraud played by the petitioner with complainant, who gave passage to Satish Chauhan by allowing him to use his bank account to swindle the loan amount of 21,15,000/-. As per certificate (Annexure P-2), M/s Awanshika Motor, Indora has been issued certificate of registration. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner was having agency to sell vehicles manufactured by TATA Motors. He had registered firm for resale of motorcycles, scooters, spare parts etc. At thisJitender Kumar 2017.03.02 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20111 of 2016 -3-
stage no reason is made out for getting a huge amount of `21,15,000/transferred in the account of Awanshika Motor. As to why and under what circumstances, the petitioner transferred this amount or part of this amount in the account of Satish Chauhan, is a matter of investigation. Role of the petitioner is prima facie disclosed and is a matter which calls for thorough investigation for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. 5. Keeping in view above facts, I find no reason to exercise discretionary power of this Court of extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Instant petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
March 01, 2017 ( SURINDER GUPTA) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Jitender Kumar 2017.03.02 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in the instant case?
Whether sufficient material exists to justify custodial interrogation of the petitioner?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajeev Katoch
State of Punjab
Surinder Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court