Paramjeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 Paramjeet Singh ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ****

Present:

Mr. Veer Vikram Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J. S. Arora, DAG, Punjab.

**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ J.

1.

Present third petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.10, dated 27.01.2024, under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Mullanpur Garibdas, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Gurmail Singh and others. It was alleged that the complainant and many other candidates received a telephonic call from Paramjeet Singh (petitioner), who informed them that the entrance exam for the post of clerk and fireman was scheduled for 17.10.2021. He claimed himself to be the clerk in the Tax

-2Department, Office of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, Sector 17 and told that he had connections with higher officials, who oversee the entire selection process. They were assured to get recruited on the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- each. He further told them that in other departments like Postal service, Government of India, the money required to be paid would be Rs.1,50,000/- per candidate. The complainant and others fell in the trap of Paramjeet Singh, i.e. the petitioner and they gave him Rs.3,00,000/- each. Paramjeet Singh and his son, namely, Arshdeep Singh assured them that their appointment letters would be issued soon. They were given two forged letters from Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, however later on they were shocked to learn that they had never been selected for any post.

It was alleged that Paramjeet Singh and Arshdeep Singh defrauded the complainant and others by taking lacs of rupees and thus, the request was made to take the legal action against the culprits. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 27.02.2024. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court praying for the grant of bail by way of filing CRM-M No.26131 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.09.2024 and CRM-M No.58771 of 2024, which was dismissed at this stage vide order dated 28.11.2024, respectively. Now the petitioner is before this Court praying for the grant of bail by way of filing the present third petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that there is no evidence found by the prosecution for

-3involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence committed. He has submitted that the main accused are Vikram Padam and Baba Gurmail Singh, who had handled the financial transactions, however the petitioner has been made a scapegoat in the present case. He has submitted that there is no evidence regarding the alleged transaction of money in favour of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. He has submitted that co-accused in the present case are already on bail. He has submitted that the investigation is complete, however there is no progress in the trial and thus, further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that this is the third petition filed by the petitioner praying for the grant of bail, however there are no change in the circumstances. He has submitted that the petitioner had defrauded 13 victims by duping them for a total amount of Rs.19,50,000/- on the pretext of getting the government jobs. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of 15 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till date.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6.

On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner has been alleged to have trapped

-4various aspirants for providing them government jobs. As per the investigation, the petitioner defrauded 13 victims by duping them for an amount of Rs.19,50,000/-. Co-accused, namely, Gagandeep Singh and Arshdeep Singh are his two sons. As observed by the trial Court, the Investigating Officer in his conclusion report had mentioned that during the investigation, it has been found that the petitioner had received Rs.50 lacs from various persons by deceiving them on the pretext of providing government jobs. Thus the allegations against the petitioner are specific. Out of 15 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till date. Even otherwise, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of filing two petitions bearing CRM-M No.26131 of 2024 and CRM-M No.58771 of 2024 praying for the grant of bail. 7.

Thus keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances, this Court does not even find any change in the circumstances for approaching this Court by way of filing the present third petition. Hence, in view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage and thus the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 20.03.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No