High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/15546/2024dismissed

Balvinder Singh v. State Of Haryana

2024-07-15Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (I) CRM-M-15546-2024 Date of Decision : July 15, 2024 BALVINDER SINGH -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA -RESPONDENT (II) CRM-M-25758-2024 ANIL KUMAR -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA -RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:

Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-15546-2024).

Mr. Pragyat Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-25758-2024).

Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1.

Since both these petitions arise out of a common FIR, besides them yearning common relief(s), therefore, they are amenable for being decided through a common verdict.

To be precise, in both these petitions, the petitioners seek the concession of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No.274 dated 24.05.2023, under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC (Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC added subsequently), registered at P.S. Naraingarh, District Ambala. 3.

The principal argument of the learned counsels representing the

petitioners is that, in fact, it is the complainant, who even himself became subsequently transposed as an accused in the present FIR, is the mastermind behind the entire scam, vis-a-vis, forgery and manipulation of documents for obtention of bank loan. Moreover, the petitioners have shared only minimal amounts of the loan, as became dishonestly obtained by the complainant, on the strength of forged documents. FACTUAL MATRIX 4.

The genesis of the present FIR is embodied in a complaint dated 17.04.2023 made by one Ram Sharan (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant'). The gist of his complaint, as narrated in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 04.05.2024, whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned has declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner (in CRMM-25758-2024), is reproduced hereinafter:-

"#"$ "!%

& '

( & '

)%* "!

"+"$ "!%

. -

1 5.

After registration of the present FIR, investigation commenced and the investigating officer collected the following documents as

evidence:- (a) Photocopy of agreement to sell dated 28.03.2017 executed by Roshni Devi in favour of the complainant for the land/plot bearing House No.448, Ward No.12, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala; (b) Photocopy of Sale Deed No.20 dated 06.04.2017, entered in Book No.384, Page 2; (c) Photocopy of assessment for the year 2015-2016. 6.

Moreover, statement of the complainant was also recorded, wherein, he clearly specified the role of the petitioners. The relevant extract of his statement, as narrated in the reply dated 20.05.2024 (in CRM-M15546-2024) is reproduced hereunder:- 2

$"* "

+ $"#- $ "

) 3

""4"* 5- 56 6- 7 ) # 3 )

& ( '

) %!$ 7

, ) !

)

4& 60 (' - -

(

60 (' &

&0 0

( ( '

0 '

( ( '

- (

0 0

- - ) 0

(

' &

& 0

$ * ' &

& 0

& '

( 60 ('

& %* "!

"+"$ "!%

!%- "-""" 4

( ( '- 9

& '

!#-#+-+!* 4 :

0 &

0 7

0 &

( - 60 ('

0- 60 (' &

& '

(

* ' (

& '-

0 0

& '

& '- ( &

& '

(

;

0 (

& '

& '1 7.

Thereafter, on 11.03.2024, the investigating officer moved an application to the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Naraingarh, thereby seeking authentication of the House Tax Assessment Receipt document. However, the official concerned reported that there is no record found in the book(s) of the Municipal Committee related to document dated 23.03.2017, in respect of the property/land bearing H.No.448, Ward No.12. Consequently, Sections 467, 468, 471 of the IPC were also added in the present FIR.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONERS 8.

The learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-15546-2024)

submits that neither the name of the petitioner reflects in the FIR, nor any role whatsoever has been assigned therein to him. 9.

The learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-25758-2024) submits that although the petitioner has been nominated as an accused in the FIR, however, the mastermind is the complainant himself, inasmuch as, it was him who forged documents to obtain loan from the bank and then in order to escape his liability, he concocted a false story. REASONS FOR DISMISSING THESE PETITIONS 10.

When these petitions came up for initial hearings, the petitioners were granted the relief of interim anticipatory bail vide separate orders and they were directed to join the investigation. However, the learned State counsel, on instructions from the official concerned, informed that although the petitioner (in CRM-M-15546-2024) joined the investigation but he did not cooperate with the investigating officer, rather remained evasive. Upon this, vide order dated 30.04.2024, the petitioner concerned was granted another opportunity to join the investigation and to cooperate with the investigating officer. However, the respondent-State filed reply and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), on the ground that, they have actively participated with the complainant to forge documents and even not cooperated with the investigating officer, rather remained evasive.

11.

What has surfaced during investigation is that, in fact, the complainant purchased the plot in question from petitioner- Anil Kumar, whereas, the original owner thereof was latter's mother Roshni Devi. Thereafter, the petitioner- Anil Kumar got sanctioned a loan in his mother's

name by showing the vacant plot as a constructed house and withdrew the loan amount.

12.

Insofar as petitioner- Balvinder Singh is concerned, a questionnaire was served to him during interrogation, to which he specifically answered that he had only provided the complainant's PAN Card, Aadhar Card, Perfume, Balance Sheet, Company Neelkanth and bank statement. He also admitted that he got 3% share of the loan amount for committing the present offence. Not only this, upon a specific query being posed to him with regard to preparation of fake assessment, he made the hereinafter extracted response:- !! ,

&0 0 5

)

&0 0 0

0 0 5

) <

3 '

&0 0

1 13.

In view of the detailed investigation (supra), prima facie this Court is of the view that the petitioners have actively participated with the complainant to obtain loan on the basis of forged documents, thus cheating the bank concerned. Not only this, despite the petitioners being afforded adequate opportunity by this Court to return the loan amount to the bank, they are not ready and willing to do so.

14.

For all the reasons (supra), coupled with the conduct of the petitioners and the roles assigned to them, this Court does not deem it a fit and deserving case to grant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, both these petitions are dismissed.

15.

However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on the merits of the case and is meant for deciding the present petitions only.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) July 15, 2024 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No