Back
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) & CRM-M-22618-2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-08-2021
Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - 482 Code of Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 - [The judgment discusses the maintainability of successive applications for anticipatory bail, the distinction between anticipatory bail and regular bail, and the legal sanctity of inquiry reports and recommendations by the Commission. The court also highlights the obligation of the investigating officer to conduct a fair and impartial investigation and the need for exceptional grounds to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The court dismisses the petitions with exemplary costs and orders the transfer of the investigation to the CBI.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed successive petitions for anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to FIR No.348 dated 06.10.2014 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners argued that the security cheque of the complainant was forged to transfer a sum of Rs.2 crores from the complainant's account to the account of M/s Arjan Mall Retail Holding Private Ltd. The petitioners also relied on cancellation reports and recommendations by the Justice Mehtab Singh Gill Commission to maintain their petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the successive applications for anticipatory bail were based on old, debilitated, and exhausted grounds. It emphasized the distinction between anticipatory bail and regular bail and highlighted the legal sanctity of inquiry reports and recommendations by the Commission. The court also observed that the petitioners were deliberately toying with the law and process of the court, and the state police had shown a lackadaisical approach in the investigation. The court dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs and ordered the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of successive applications for anticipatory bail, the legal sanctity of inquiry reports and recommendations by the Commission, and the obligation of the investigating officer to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the successive applications for anticipatory bail were not maintainable without new substantial grounds. It emphasized the need for exceptional grounds to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The court also highlighted the obligation of the investigating officer to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs and ordered the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. It also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion upon the final report already filed against the co-accused, and directed the newly appointed investigating agency to conclude the investigation expeditiously.
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.
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 Mal 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 Mal 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 complainant 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 Mal 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 Mal 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 Mal 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 Mal 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 Mal Retail Holding Pvt. Ltd Pha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
