Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Karamjit Singh, J.
Arvind Singla – Appellant
Versus
State of UT, Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M-36885-2021
Decided On : 14-01-2022
Regular Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B - The court allowed the petitioner's plea for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court considered the evidence and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, and granted bail with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving charges under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B. The petitioner was accused of fabricating/forging partnership deeds and illegally withdrawing funds from the complainant's bank account.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant and her husband did not specifically deny their signatures on the disputed documents. The court also noted that the trial was not progressing, and the statutory period for bail application had expired.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged fabrication of documents and illegal fund withdrawals by the petitioner, as well as the delay in the complaint being lodged after the alleged incidents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence, lack of denial of signatures, and the statutory provisions under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. in granting bail. The court also emphasized that the pendency of other criminal cases against the petitioner cannot be the sole ground for refusal of bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's plea for regular bail and directed the petitioner to be released on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Karamjit Singh , J.
1. Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.
2. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail on behalf of petitioner in case FIR No.133 dated 8.6.2021 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B at Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of his cousin Deepak Singla and his wife Shweta Singla, who is complainant in the present case. It is further contended that petitioner and Deepak Singla were running M/s Bell Enterprises whereas Shweta Singla was owner of M/s K.S. Enterprises. While referring to balance sheet dated 31.3.2016 (Annexure P-1/A) of M/s Bell Enterprises, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that said firm owed approximately Rs. 4 crores to aforesaid M/s K.S. Enterprises and this fact clearly establishes that Deepak Singla being hand in glove with his wife Shweta Singla was causing losses to M/s Bell Enterprises and financial gains to the firm owned by his wife Shweta Singla.
4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that as per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner in connivance with his co- accused prepared forged modified partnership deed dated 16.06.2016, when Deepak Singla was admitted in Fortis Hospital Mohali as he sustained accidental firearm injury. It is further contended that in the FIR there are no allegations regarding fabrication of Memorandum of Understanding (in short ‘MOU’) dated 16.06.2016. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that as per the complainant she came to know about the fabrication of aforesaid modified partnership deed on 10.02.2020 when the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi issued non-bailable warrants against her in a criminal complaint relating to dishonour of cheque. Thereafter she lodged complaint in writing against the petitioner on 21.12.2020 and finally FIR was registered on 8.6.2021 and the petitioner was arrested on 17.6.2021 and on completion of investigation, challan was presented against the petitioner on 21.6.2021.
5. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the plea taken by the complainant that she came to know about fabrication of the disputed documents in 2020 stands belied. The counsel for the petitioner, in this regard referred to different documents i.e. notice dated 28.6.2016 published in the Tribune (Annexure P-14), letter dated 15.7.2016 sent by Deepak Singla to Beetel Teletech Ltd. (Annexure P-13), letter dated 19.7.2016 sent by Deepak Singla to State Bank of India (Annexure P-12), affidavit dated 19.7.2016 given by Deepak Singla to Punjab National Bank (Annexure P-11), letter dated 21.7.2016 sent by Bell Enterprises to Punjab National Bank under the signatures of the complainant and her husband Deepak Singla (Annexure 20-A), reply dated 17.12.2016 to legal notice by Deepak Singla (Annexure P-15) and copy of order of Bombay High Court dated 11.9.2018 in arbitration petition filed by Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. against Bell Enterprises (Annexure P-16). The counsel for the petitioner further argued that after going through all these documents, it stands established that Deepak Singla and his wife Shweta Singla were fully aware about the aforesaid modified partnership deed from the very beginning. The silence on their part for the next 3-4 years is enough to establish falsity of the FIR. In the FIR nothing was stated regarding MOU dated 16.6.2016, however, police in its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., has alleged that the said MOU dated 16.6.2016 is also forged and fabricated document. That the said allegation also stands rebutted. In this regard the counsel for the petitioner referred to sale agreement dated 16.6.2016 (Annexure P-5), sale deed dated 11.7.2016 (Annexure P-4), sale agreement dated 16.6.2016 (Annexure P-9), another sale agreement dated 16.6.2016 (An
AI
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
