IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manoj Bajaj, J.
Arjun Bhanot & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
CRM-M-56142-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M-22618-2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-08-2021
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - [420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201] - The court discussed the maintainability of successive applications for anticipatory bail, the legal sanctity of interim reports and recommendations, and the role of police in investigation. The court dismissed the petitions for anticipatory bail, imposed exemplary costs, and ordered the transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the final report already filed against the co-accused, leaving it to be considered by the trial court on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of forgery and fraudulent transfer of funds. The court noted the repeated filing of petitions for bail on different grounds and found the grounds relied upon to be old, debilitated, and exhausted. The court also observed deliberate attempts to mislead and delay the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitions for anticipatory bail, imposed exemplary costs, and ordered the transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the final report already filed against the co-accused, leaving it to be considered by the trial court on merits.
Issues: The court analyzed the maintainability of successive applications for anticipatory bail, the legal sanctity of interim reports and recommendations, and the role of police in investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the successive applications for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained unless the fresh prayer is based on new substantial grounds not available when the previous bail application was decided on merits. The court also emphasized the complementary roles of the police in investigation and the judiciary in trial, and the need for fair and impartial investigation to strengthen the judicial process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions for anticipatory bail, imposed exemplary costs, and ordered the transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the final report already filed against the co-accused, leaving it to be considered by the trial court on merits.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Bajaj, J. - The petitioners have filed their respective fourth and third petition under Section 438 read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 348 dated 06.10.2014 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda, who apprehend their arrest by Police.
2. The above FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint given by complainant, namely, Sharan Dass (respondent No.2) and allegations as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda in the order dated 10.11.2014 are as under:-
"Brief facts of this case are that FIR in question was registered on the basis of application moved by complainant Sharan Dass on behalf of M/s Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd. Bathinda. It is revealed in the application that the complainant Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd. is having dealing with the UCO Bank, Branch Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. The accused named in the FIR (Bank Officers) in connivance have sanctioned loan of Rs. 6.50 Crores to M/s Arjun Mai Retail Holding Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Branch Ludhiana, without any document and they have withdrawn Rs. 4.50 Crores out of this loan. Punjab & Sind Bank Branch Phagwara advanced a loan of Rs. 3.20 Crores to M/s Arjun Mai Retail Holding Pvt. Ltd. against mortgage of land. In the meantime, they negotiated with Bank Officers of UCO Bank for availing loan of Rs. 6.50 Crores against the land already mortgaged but the Officers of Punjab & Sind Bank did not agree. The Officers of UCO Bank, in order to save their job, approached the complainant. On 19.12.2013 Sukhdev Singh Wassan DGM, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Ludhiana visited their office at Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. Varun Kumar son of Pardeep Kumar, Darshan Kumar son of Jagan Nath were also present. In the presence of these persons, they (Bank Officers) asked the eomplainant for Rs. 2 Crores for a period of three days. The complainant expressed inability due to insufficient bank balance in the account. On that day, Sukhdev Singh Wassan stayed at Sepal Hotel Bathinda and on 20.12.2013 he went back. It is further alleged in the complaint that after few days Nilesh Kumar Saha, Chief Manager and Chander Kant Gupta, Senior Manager approached the complainant and repeated the same version as revealed by Sukhdev Singh Wassan. Complainant again expressed his inability. On that day also, Varun Kumar and Darshan Kumar were also present in the office of the complainant.
It is further alleged that their blank signed cheques were already with the UCO Bank for security in connection with office dealing. The accused, on 31.12.2013, without consent of the complainant, have purchased the cheque in their account from HDFC Bank for Rs. 2 Crores and credited in their account. The accused have withdrawn Rs. 1,99,28,545/- and transferred this amount in the account of M/s Arjun Mai Retail Holding Pvt. Ltd at Axix Bank Phagwara through RTGS. It is also alleged by the complainant that their consent was not obtained. It is also alleged that Officers of UCO Bank are already involved in bank fraud. The complainant has also revealed the details of the other fraud committed in connivance with M/s Arjun Mai Retail Holding Pvt. Ltd, the reference of which is not considered relevant for the disposal of this application.
On receipt of this application, the matter was got enquired by joining the Bank Officers and Director of M/s Arjun Mai Retail Holding Pvt. Ltd and after enquiry it was found that Bank Officer Nilesh Kumar Saha, then Senior Manager UCO Bank, MCB Branch Ludhiana, Chander Kant Gutpa, Senior Manager (Credit) UCO Bank and others in connivance with Rakesh Kumar Bhanot, Kiran Bhanot and Arjun Bhanot Directors of M/s Arjun Mai Retail Holding Pvt. Ltd have cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.2 Crores by misusing the cheque of complainant Gurdas Agro and by transferring this amount via RTGC in the account of M/s Arjun Mai Retail Holding
Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat and others
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. vs. The State of Punjab 1980 AIR(SC) 1632
Kalvan Chandra Sarkar vs. Raiesh Rani an (a) Pappu Yadav. 2005 (2) SCC 42
M.K. Kushalappa and another vs. KJ. Georse and others". 2017 (4) RCR(Cri) 140
Rani Dudeia vs. State of Harvana. 2017 (13) SCC 555
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.