Tarwinder Singh Sabharwal v. State Of Punjab

-1CRM-M-20074 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20074 of 2020 Date of Decision: 23.07.2020 Tarwinder Singh Sabharwal

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate, for the complainant. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to pandemic Covid-19.

Through this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner - Tarwinder Singh Sabharwal - in case FIR No.280 dated 26.11.2019 registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sahnewal, Ludhiana. According to prosecution, petitioner induced complainant to secure an oil tender for him from a Korean company, named Posco on payment of `4.25 crore as surety amount. Petitioner also introduced his accomplice Ashok Diwan and Arvind Swami as civil contractors of the aforesaid Posco company. Hatching a conspiracy, petitioner along with his aforesaid accomplice, cheated the complainant for `4,36,74,000/-, out of which petitioner and his accomplice returned only `63,00,000/-. Still RAVINDER SINGH 2020.07.23 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2CRM-M-20074 of 2020 amount of `3,73,74,000/- is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel inter alia contends that matter in dispute between complainant and petitioner based on documentary evidence, is of civil nature. Compromise (Annexure P-3) has also taken place between the parties. There is no cash transaction. Petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. He is ready to repay the amount. But he is facing a problem that his bank account has been attached by Maharashtra Police. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the bail application, submitting that there are several FIRs against the petitioner registered by various people for cheating them by petitioner and his accomplice. One such FIR is registered at Bombay.

Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and the fact that petitioner and his accomplice defrauded the complainant for a huge amount i.e. approximately `4.00 crore, petitioner is certainly required for custodial interrogation to unearth modus operandi to commit such a huge fraud. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

(RAMENDRA JAIN) July 23, 2020 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2020.07.23 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document