SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
Karan Goyal & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 29542 of 2024 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate; For the Petitioners

Anticipatory bail granted subject to cooperation with the investigation, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation in cases involving substantial financial allegations.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 438 and 482 - Anticipatory bail - Application for impleadment of additional respondents allowed - Petitioners granted anticipatory bail subject to joining investigation and producing relevant documents - Non-compliance will result in cancellation of bail. (Paras 1-15)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court has the authority to grant anticipatory bail when the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation. (Paras 7-13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.85 for alleged fraud involving a significant amount, claiming no involvement in the business transaction. (Paras 7-8)

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, emphasizing the petitioners' willingness to cooperate with the investigation. (Paras 13-15)

Issues: The main issues included the petitioners' involvement in the alleged fraud and the necessity of custodial interrogation. (Paras 8-10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioners are ready to assist in the investigation, highlighting the importance of cooperation. (Paras 12-13)

Result: Petitioners granted anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

CRM-26021-2024

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking impleadment of Sh. Ram Pal and Smt. Devki Rani as respondents No.2 and 3, respectively.

2. Notice in the application to the non-applicant/respondent.

3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State, who has no objection in case the above said application is allowed.

4. In view of the averments made in the application as well as no objection on behalf of the respondent-State, the same is allowed. Sh. Ram Pal and Smt. Devki Rani are ordered to be impleaded as respondents No.2 and 3, respectively in the memo of parties.

5. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

6. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

CRM-M-29542-2024

7. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.85, dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420 and 120B IPC, registered at Police Station Gobindgarh Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that through a business transaction which was entered into between the father of the petitioners and the complainant, an amount of Rs. 5,26,64,494.30/- is claimed to be duped by the father of the petitioners on account of underpayment which resulted into the registration of the instant FIR. He inter alia contends that firstly the petitioners have no concern with the business transaction entered into between the complainant and the father of the petitioners and secondly, if at all there is any liability, the same is civil in nature arising out of a business transaction which is a contractual obligation.

9. Notice of motion.

10. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and on instructions from ASI Jaspal Singh, seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required wherein huge money is involved in the business transaction and very material documents in the form of ledger books, accounts, stock registers of the firm which are to be taken into possession for investigation.

11. Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and also supports and stand by the argument raised on behalf of the State and in addition thereof, he submits that the argument of the petitioners that their father entered into an agreement is totally false wherein the account books and other record of the firm belonging to the petitioners firm i.e. M/s Mittal Ceramics would clearly indicate that it is the petitioners who are running the shop and are now taking the stand to get rid of their liability of due amount as pointed out hereinabove.

12. Be that as it may, the petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation wherein the material and other incriminating evidence whatsoever is required for investigation by the police are documentary in nature i.e. ledger books, account books, stock registers etc. which shall be made available to the investigating agency by the petitioners without any hitch.

13. In the light of above observations and the undertaking given by the petitioners that they shall duly associate and cooperate with the investigating agency by producing the relevant record whatsoever necessary for investigation, the petitioners are directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to their joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioners shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.

14. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioners do not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within one week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top