Bhagat Preet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Petitioner, an accused in ca s e FIR No. 0006 dated 29.01.2 0 24, under Se c tions 420, 467, 468, 471, 50 6 of Indian Penal Code, regist e red against h i m at Police Station Sarabha Na g ar, Ludhiana, has filed the pre s ent petition f o r grant of anticipatory bail.

¶17

Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on recor d be noticed h e reinbelow:-

¶18

Criminal proceedings in the p resent case were registered on the complain t dated 29.1.2024 moved by Da n ish Irfan Aaga, who claimed t o be caretake r in India of three Afghanistan c ompanies, namely, Tak Dry F r uit, Najeb A m in Ltd. and Noor Ahmad Bah e r Ahmade Ltd., dealing in imp o rt,

¶19

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-33275-2024 -2-

¶21

export of dry fruits in different countries. In June, 2023, a meeting was h eld between President of Tak Dry Fruit Company, namely, Mukham m ad Dzhamil with petitioner-Bhagat Preet S i ngh, resident of L-6, Hazi Str e et, MK Ro a d, Guru Harkrishan Nagar, Khanna, District Ludhiana, in connecti o n with business of dry fruits. In the said meeting, as has been further a l leged in the complaint, petition e r Bhagat Preet Singh had ass u red with wit h in three days of receipt of th e material, the payments woul d be deposite d by him in the account of a b ove mentioned three companies. Thereafter, the dry fruits worth Rs.5 cro r es was delivered to the compan y of petitione r , namely, M/s Fresh Nuts Ove r seas. The payment of Rs.5 cr o res was dep o sited by petitioner. Complain a nt next pointed out that therea f ter Najeb A m in Ltd., Afghanistan supplie d dry fruits to the company of petitione r on 197.2023, 7.9.2023, 12.9.2023 and 6.11.2023 for U SD 297063.4 0 . Tak Dry Fruit Company, Af g hanistan also supplied dry fruit s to the comp a ny of petitioner on various da t es followed by supply of dry fr u its by Noor A hmad Baher Ahmad Ltd. on 2 0.8.2023. In all the total valu e of dry fruits supplied to petitioner was Rs. 7 .18 crores. The said amount w as not depo s ited by petitioner despite the fa c t that he kept on assuring that the needful w ould be done. On some occasi o ns, petitioner also threatened t hat since the material supplied to him has n o t been sold and that whenever the same is s old, the money would be dep o sited. After buying time for f ew months, petitioner whose intention w as to cheat three Afghani s tan compani e s from whom he had receive d dry fruits worth Rs.7.18 cro r es, stopped a ttending the calls. It is further the allegation of complainant t hat on 17.10. 2 023, a fake statement of Swift M essage MT-103 of Axis Bank L td.

¶22

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-33275-2024 -3-

¶24

was sent by petitioner indicating that h e had deposited the payment of dry fruits of USD 63600, which were supp l ied to him on 20.8.2023 by N oor Ahmad B a har Ahmad Ltd. However, when the statement was checked f r om Axis Ban k , the code was found to be fa k e and in fact no money had been deposite d by petitioner. On 22.1.2 0 24, a complaint was made to Commiss i oner of Police, Ludhiana. In pursuance of which, pre s ent petitione r and his other accomplice vi s ited Ludhiana. On 23.1.202 4 , a comprom i se was arrived at between t h e parties. In pursuance ther e to, petitione r deposited Rs.19 lakhs in the a c count of complainant. Rs.31 l a khs was to b e deposited on 24.1.2024. As a gainst the terms and condition s of comprom i se, only Rs.11 lakhs was dep o sited by petitioner. Even fur t her payment w as also not made. Thus, in cr u x, the allegation of complaina n t is that apar t from sending a forged Swift C ode assuring that money has been deposite d in the account of M/s Noor A h mad Baher Ahmad, the terms a nd condition s of the subsequent compromis e arrived at between the partie s on 23.1.202 4 were also not adhered to by petitioner, who thus, intention a lly cheated t h e three Afghanistan companies , who had supplied dry fruits w o rth Rs.7.18 c r ores. On the basis of said co m plaint, a formal case vide FIR N o. 0006 dat e d 29.01.2024, under Sections 4 20, 467, 468, 471, 506 of In d ian Penal C o de, was registered against him at Police Station Sarabha Na g ar, Ludhiana.

¶25

Apprehending his arrest, p e titioner moved an application for grant of p re-arrest bail. The same wa s dismissed by learned Additi o nal Sessions J udge, Ludhiana in terms of or d er dated 19.2.2024. Aggrieve d of which, pr e sent petition has been filed.

¶26

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-33275-2024 -4-

¶28

Learned counsel for the pe t itioner submits that petitioner has been fals e ly implicated in the present cas e . A bare perusal of the allegations levelled i n the FIR would reveal that the d ispute being purely commerci a l in nature h a s deliberately been given a cr i minal colour only with a vie w to harass the petitioner and to extract illegal monetary benefit from h im. Continui n g further, learned counsel cont e nds that petitioner-Chief Execu t ive Officer o f M/s Fresh Nuts Overseas, has been dealing in the business of dry fruits for the last ten years. He has ear n ed a good name for himself in the market. H e had been regularly making p a yment to all the three Afghani s tan compani e s but the consignment which w e re sent in September, October a nd Novemb e r, 2023 were totally subst a ndard and not fit for hu m an consump t ion. It was only when the retai l ers informed the wholesalers a b out the subst a ndard quantity of dry fruits, p etitioner requested the said t h ree compani e s to take back the material po i nting out that the wholesalers h ad refused t o make the payment.

¶29

It is also the submissio n of learned counsel that the investiga t ion in the present case has b een far from satisfactory. T he highhand e dness on the part of the Invest i gating Officer can be gauged f r om the fact t h at the wholesalers to whom t h e dry fruits had been supplied a nd who wer e never in direct contact with the three Afghanistan compa n ies, were also arrayed as accused. Precisely, f or the said reason, Raman Kha n na, proprieto r of Knight Trading Company K hari Baoli, Delhi was granted the concessi o n of bail by the learned Additio n al Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

¶30

Learned counsel for the pe t itioner next contends that a S w ift Code was generated by petitioner was not fake. In any case, the s aid

¶31

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CRM-M-33275-2024 -5-

¶33

question o f fact can only be decided af t er the parties lead their respec t ive evidence. It is also the submission o f learned counsel that after the concessi o n of anticipatory bail was grant e d to petitioner on 29.7.2024 by t his Court, he never misused the same. Thu s , prayer has been made to con f irm order dat e d 29.7.2024. 4. Per Contra, while opposi n g the petition for grant of b ail, learned c o unsel for complainant as also learned State counsel have dr a wn the attent i on of this Court to the Status R eport filed by way of affidavi t of Murad J a svir Singh Gill, PPS, Assista n t Commissioner of Police (W e st), Ludhiana, wherein, apart from reiteratin g the facts leading to the lodgin g of the FIR i ncluding the fact that after th e complaint was lodged, petiti o ner entered i nto a compromise with the complainant, caretaker of t h ree Afghanis t an companies in India and ass u red to make the payment, but w ent back on h is promise and did not adher e to terms and conditions ther e of. From the material collected during the c o urse of investigation, it also c a me to be kno w n that petitioner had in fact se n t a forged Swift Message MT- 1 03 Code in d icating that payment had be e n made. However, when b a nk accounts w ere checked, the code was fou n d to be fake.

¶34

Thus, while opposing the re q uest for grant of anticipatory b ail, learned c o unsel for the complainant con t ends that a huge fraud of Rs. 7 .18 crores ha s been intentionally committed b y petitioner, it is not a simple c ase of non-c o mpliance of commercial agre e ment. Presence of petitioner, is needed f o r custodial interrogation to re c over the said amount. Prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made.

¶35

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-M-33275-2024 -6-

¶37

Heard learned counsel for t he parties and have perused the documen t s on record.

¶38

Before expressing any opin i on on submissions raised by b oth the coun s els, it would be appropriate to refer to certain judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the f actors to be kept in mind w h ile dealing w ith an application for grant of anticipatory bail, have been discusse d . 7. Hon’ble the Supreme C o urt in “ P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791) , has observed as under : -

¶39

“67. Ordinarily, arrest i s a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not o n ly the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Po w er under Section 438 Cr.P.C 1 9 73 is an extraordinary power a nd the same has to be exerc i sed sparingly. The privilege of t h e pre-arrest bail should be gra n ted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion confe r red upon the court has to be pro p erly exercised after applicatio n of mind as to the nature and g r avity of the accusation; possib i lity of applicant fleeing justice a nd other factors to decide whe t her it is a fit case for gran t of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some e xtent interferes in the spher e of investigation of an offenc e and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipat o ry bail is not to be granted a s a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the cou r t is

¶40

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CRM-M-33275-2024 -7-

¶42

convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to t hat extraordinary remedy.” 8. Hon’ble the Supreme Cour t while deciding the case title d as “Ms. X Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another” (2023 SCC Online SC

¶43

279) held as under:-

¶44

“11.1. We propose to take a quick look at the considerations that ought to govern grant o f anticipatory bail. There are a l ine of decisions of this court t h at have underscored the fact t hat while deciding an applicatio n for bail, the court ought to ref r ain from undertaking a detailed analysis of the evidence, the f o cus being on the prima facie iss u es including consideration of s o me reasonable grounds that would go to show if the accused has committed the offence or th o se facts that would reflect on the seriousness of the offence. T h e self-imposed restraint on del v ing deep into the analysis of th e evidence at that stage is for v a lid reasons, namely, to prevent a ny prejudice to the case set u p by the prosecution or the defen c e likely to be taken by the acc u sed and to keep all aspects o f the matter open till the tria l is concluded.

¶45

12. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar's case (supra) (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Chatterjee and another) , a Divi s ion Bench of this Court had hig h lighted the factors that ought t o be borne in mind while c o nsidering the anticipatory b ail application and had stated t h at :- "9. We are of the opinion t hat the impugned order is cle a rly unsustainable. It is trite th a t this Court does not, norm a lly,

¶46

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

CRM-M-33275-2024

¶48

-8-

¶49

interfere with an order pas s ed by the High Court grantin g or rejecting bail to the accuse d . However, it is equally incum b ent upon the High Court to e xercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic princi p les laid down in a plethora of d ecisions of this Court on the p o int. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factor s to be borne in mind while consi d ering an application for bail a r e: (i) whether there is any pr i ma facie or reasonable groun d to believe that the accused had c ommitted the offence;

¶50

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii)severity of the punishme n t in the event of conviction;

¶51

(iv)danger of the accused a b sconding or fleeing, if release d on bail;

¶52

(v) character, behaviour, m e ans, position and standing of the accused;

¶53

(vi) likelihood of the offence b eing repeated;

¶54

(vii) reasonable apprehensio n of the witnesses being influen c ed; and

¶55

(viii) danger, of course, of ju s tice being thwarted by grant o f bail.”

¶56

In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 AIR SC 3375 , the Hon ’ ble Supreme Court held that “Anticipatory b ail is an exceptional remedy a nd ought not to be granted in a routine man n er.” 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court i n plethora of judicial preced e nts including Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, has t i me and agai n reiterated that while consideri n g the anticipatory bail the Cou r t is to take i n to consideration the facts li k e gravity of offence, chances of accused t ampering with the evidence a n d probabilities of his fleeing f r om justice et c . Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decisio n on

¶57

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

CRM-M-33275-2024 -9-

¶59

the socie t y as well. The anticipatory b ail is an extraordinary discre t ion which sh o uld be exercised in the extraor d inary circumstances. 11. Factual aspects of the case l e ading to the registration of the F IR have already been noticed in para 2 of the order. In brief, the allega t ion against t h e petitioner is that dry fruits w o rth Rs.7.18 crores were supplie d to M/s Fres h Nuts Overseas, (of which h e is CEO) from three Afghani s tan compani e s. However, he did not make t h e payment despite the fact tha t he initially k ept on buying time and assurin g complainant that needful woul d be done. B u t after sometime, he stopped attending the calls. Thereafte r , a Swift Code was sent indicating that p a yment had been made but w h en checked u p from Bank, the same was fo u nd to be ‘fake’. The plea take n by petitione r that substandard dry fruits was supplied by the said t h ree compani e s, which fact was brought to h i s knowledge by other retailers a nd wholesal e rs also seems to be an after tho u ght, particularly when appreci a ted in the lig h t of documents on record. Ha d it been so, there was no occa s ion for him to initially request the three A f ghanistan companies to grant h im sometim e and thereafter to send a Swift Code indicating that payment has been ma d e. Further still, when the co m plaint was lodged by complai n ant and the m atter was enquired into by th e police authorities at Ludhian a , it remains i n explicable as to why petitioner entered into a compromise. I t is not his p l ea that he was compelled to s e ttle the dispute. It would als o be appropri a te to point out that the compro m ise, if any, arrived at between coaccused Ajay Bansal (petitioner in C RM-M-38159-2024) and pre s ent petitione r is of no consequence at all, f or, how they can decide between themselv e s as to how much amount is du e to complainant. Moreover, in the interim o r der dated 7.6.2024 passed by l earned Additional Sessions Ju d ge,

¶60

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶61

CRM-M-33275-2024 -10-

¶62

Ludhiana (copy of which is appended a long), factum of co-accused A jay Bansal a g reeing to make payment of R s .70 lakhs in account of M/s F r esh Nuts Ove r seas stands recorded. 12. Consequently, in view of t h e entire facts, circumstances a nd documen t s brought on record, the Cour t is further of the opinion that the petitione r has failed to make out a case o f exceptional depravity/hardshi p in his favou r , entitling him to the grant of t h is extraordinary relief of pre-ar r est bail.

¶63

The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. 14. Misc. application, if any, als o stands disposed of.

¶64

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 13.11.20 2 5 JUDGE gbs Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶65

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bhagat Preet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagat Preet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikramdeep Singh @ Bikramjit Singh @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab

Baldev Singh Vs Gurmeet Singh

Raghbir Singh Vs Ujjal Singh

Shriram Transport Finance Compamny Ltd. Vs Rakesh Kumar

Chandan Singh Vs Anita

Munit Kumar Vs State of Punjab